The Case for the Existence of God
The following is a reprint of an article appearing in Apologetics Press. I have posted it as is, in its entirety. I have added rebuttal notes of my own in blue. ~Brother Mark
The Case for the Existence of God [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. |
|
One of the most
basic, and most
fundamental,
issues that can
be considered by
the human mind
is the question,
“Does God
exist?” In the
field of logic,
there are
principles—or as
they are called
more often,
laws—that govern
human thought
processes and
that are
accepted as
analytically
true. One of
these is the law
of the excluded
middle. When
applied to
objects, this
law states that
an object cannot
both possess and
not possess a
certain trait or
characteristic
at the same time
and in the same
fashion. When
applied to
propositions,
this law states
that all
precisely stated
propositions are
either true or
false; they
cannot be both
true and false
at the same time
and in the same
fashion.
Asking if God
exists is
tantamount to
asking could
mythology be
true? The
very concept of
God is myth,
imagination --
but that in
itself does not
make it de
facto false.
Myth could be
considered as a
type of
speculation and
it's not
inconceivable
that a
mythological
idea could be
true, but
unlikely.
The statement,
“God exists,” is
a precisely
stated
proposition.
Thus, it is
either true or
false. The
simple fact is,
either God
exists or He
does not. There
is no middle
ground. One
cannot affirm
logically both
the existence
and nonexistence
of God. The
atheist boldly
states that God
does not exist;
the theist
affirms just as
boldly that God
does exist; the
agnostic laments
that there is
not enough
evidence to make
a decision on
the matter; and
the skeptic
doubts that
God’s existence
can be proven
with certainty.
Who is correct?
Does God exist
or not?
Making it a
black or white
issue limits
one's options as
to how God may
be perceived.
If it is a yes
or no
proposition then
we are left with
assuming that
God spoken of
here is the God
of the Bible, or
at least a very
similar concept
-- an actual
creative Being.
The only way to
answer this
question, of
course, is to
seek out and
examine the
evidence. It
certainly is
reasonable to
suggest that if
there is a God,
He would make
available to us
evidence
adequate to the
task of proving
His existence.
But does such
evidence exist?
And if it does,
what is the
nature of that
evidence?
The above
seems to imply
that that God
would provide
additional
evidence apart
from what can be
attained from
analysis of
nature:
"He would make
available to us
evidence
adequate to the
task of proving
His existence."
Well where is
it? The
evidence
contained herein
is only
circumstantial
-- there is no
evidence that
expressly points
to God.
There also is an
admission that
evidence of
God's existence
is not obvious.
One must wonder
why, if God
really exists,
would he not
just let us know
in an
unmistakable
manner.
The theist
advocates the
view that
evidence is
available to
prove
conclusively
that God does
exist, and that
this evidence is
adequate to
establish beyond
reasonable doubt
the existence of
God.
So, it's clearly
established here
that Mr.
Thompson was
already a theist
before the
so-called proof
presented here
was derived.
Do you think for
a minute that a
confirmed theist
is going to
allow the
conclusion of
his
investigations
be anything
other than
there's a God? However, when we
employ the word
“prove,” we do
not mean that
God’s existence
can be
demonstrated
scientifically
in the same
fashion that one
might prove that
a sack of
potatoes weighs
ten pounds, or
that a human
heart has four
distinct
chambers within
it. Such matters
as the weight of
a sack of
vegetables, or
the divisions
within a muscle,
are matters that
may be verified
empirically
using the five
senses. And
while empirical
evidence often
is quite useful
in establishing
the validity of
a case, it is
not the sole
means of
arriving at
proof. For
example, legal
authorities
recognize the
validity of a
prima facie
case, which is
acknowledged to
exist when
adequate
evidence is
available to
establish the
presumption of a
fact that,
unless such fact
can be refuted,
legally stands
proven (see
Jackson, 1974,
p. 13). It is
the contention
of the theist
that there is a
vast body of
evidence that
makes an
impregnable
prima facie
case for the
existence of
God—a case that
simply cannot be
refuted. I would
like to present
here the
prima facie
case for the
existence of
God, and a
portion of the
evidence upon
which that case
is based.
A prima facie
case is used in
case law.
It presents
evidence that would be
sufficient to
win the case, in
the event the
opposing side
does not appear
in the case.
In civil law, it
would be very
unlikely to present
evidence to
prove the
existence of
someone.
Naturally, what
one presents in
a typical prima
facie case would
be evidence to
support that a
known person did
or did not do
something that
caused harm to
the complainant.
How one could
prove some
hypothetical
person to exist
beyond any
reasonable doubt
would be highly
problematic, and
probably nearly
impossible to
do. Since
the person is
only hypothetical
in the first
place we must
assume there has
been no direct
evidence, but
only
circumstantial.
It would have to
be shown that
the
circumstances
being submitted
as evidence
could only be
accounted for by
this
hypothetical
person to the
exclusion of all
other
possibilities.
Since we have no
independent
knowledge of
this
hypothetical
person apart
from the
circumstantial
evidence, it would
only be that
evidence that
would describe
him. Since
any number of
hypothetical
possibilities
could be
imagined to be
the cause of
anything, we
could never be
more precise
than saying
"Something did it
that has the
characteristics
required to have
done it."
-- any other
attributes would
be totally
imaginary.
Thus, it would
be just as fair
to say that
aliens did it or
any other
imaginary being
did it.
You could only
prove the God of
the Bible, if
all or at least
a substantial
amount of the
happenings in
the Bible that
are attributed
to God actually
occurred and
that only a God
could have been
responsible.
A
prima facie
case would be
doomed from the
outset to prove
the God of the
Bible because it
could never
point to that
particular
being, but only
in same vague
sense to a
supernatural
being as
being required.
CAUSE AND
EFFECT—THE
COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
Throughout human
history, one of
the most
effective
arguments for
the existence of
God has been the
cosmological
argument, which
addresses the
fact that the
Universe
(Cosmos) is here
and therefore
must be
explained in
some fashion. In
his book, Not
A Chance,
R.C. Sproul
observed:
Traditional
philosophy
argued for the
existence of God
on the
foundation of
the law of
causality. The
cosmological
argument went
from the
presence of a
cosmos back to a
creator of the
cosmos. It
sought a
rational answer
to the question,
“Why is
there something
rather than
nothing?” It
sought a
sufficient
reason for a
real world
(1994, p. 169,
emp. in orig.).
One really
should be
wondering why
there should be
nothing instead
of something.
Nothingness is
actually a much
more bizarre
concept to
envision.
The Universe
exists and is
real.
Atheists and
agnostics not
only acknowledge
its existence,
but admit that
it is a grand
effect (e.g.,
see Jastrow,
1977, pp.
19-21). If an
entity cannot
account for its
own being (i.e.,
it is not
sufficient to
have caused
itself), then it
is said to be
“contingent”
because it is
dependent upon
something
outside of
itself to
explain its
existence. The
Universe is a
contingent
entity, since it
is inadequate to
cause, or
explain, its own
existence.
Sproul has
noted: “Logic
requires that if
something exists
contingently, it
must have a
cause. That is
merely to say,
if it is an
effect it must
have an
antecedent
cause” (1994, p.
172). Thus,
since the
Universe is a
contingent
effect, the
obvious question
becomes, “What
caused
the Universe?”
Actually
"contingent"
means that
something is
possible, but
won't actually
occur unless
something else
happens first.
What happens
first is however
not the cause,
it is a
prerequisite:
"The party is
contingent upon
my graduating."
In these
discussions
"contingent"
means that the
universe does
not necessarily
have to exist in
any particular
fashion.
The idea here is
that the
universe is
contingent upon
laws of nature
(not God), and
that those laws
could have taken
any of a
multitude of
different forms.
The opposite of
contingent in
these
discussions is
"necessity"
meaning the
universe must
exist and can
only exist one
way.
"Contingent" vs.
"necessity" just
has to do with
whether or not
the universe
could have been
different, not
whether is was
created or not,
or whether it
had a cause or
not.
Whether the
universe is
contingent or
exists out of
necessity is a
matter of
scientific
philosophy. Regardless of
the term "grand
effect" and
the claim that
atheists accept
that the
universe is
contingent, it is
certainly not
the universal
view of
atheists that
the universe is
an effect and
must have had a
cause.
It is here that
the law of cause
and effect (also
known as the law
of causality) is
strongly tied to
the cosmological
argument. Simply
put, the law of
causality states
that every
material effect
must have an
adequate
antecedent
cause.
But, of course
not God -- how
convenient. Just as
the law of the
excluded middle
is analytically
true, so the law
of cause and
effect is
analytically
true as well. Sproul addressed
this when he
wrote:
The statement
“Every effect
has an
antecedent
cause” is
analytically
true. To say
that it is
analytically or
formally true is
to say that it
is true by
definition or
analysis. There
is nothing in
the predicate
that is not
already
contained by
resistless logic
in the subject.
It is like the
statement, “A
bachelor is an
unmarried man”
or “A triangle
has three sides”
or “Two plus two
are four....”
Cause and
effect, though
distinct ideas,
are inseparably
bound together
in rational
discourse. It is
meaningless to
say that
something is a
cause if
it yields no
effect. It
is likewise
meaningless to
say that
something is an
effect if
it has no
cause. A
cause, by
definition, must
have an effect,
or it is not a
cause. An
effect, by
definition, must
have a cause, or
it is not an
effect (1994,
pp. 172,171 emp.
in orig.).
Ok, I think we
get the idea.
The universe
must have had a
cause, right?
But, at what
point does the
cause of the
universe come
into play?
The "prime
mover" concept
can only benefit
theistic
evolutionists.
It means that
only when we run
out of natural
cause-effect
relationships do
we need an
unmoved mover.
Though many
Christians
advance the
argument of a
prime mover,
they just don't
realize they are
unwittingly
supporting
evolution.
The God of the
Bible is not a
prime mover, he
is the mover (or
at least the
intermediate
mover).
He created
everything as
is. Any
argument that
uses the
ultimate cause
of the universe
as evidence of
God is refuting
the Bible as God
being the only
cause of
most everything.
That brings us
to another
interesting
dilemma --
obviously there
are in fact many
things in nature
that do have a
cause and effect
relationship.
God doesn't
directly cause
lightening,
storms, wind,
etc.; so,
we must assume
the God of the
Bible to be an
intermediate
mover, where
cause and effect
exists since the
time of
creation.
From a rational
viewpoint, God
can only be at
most the prime
mover, which
excludes the God
of the Bible.
Effects without
adequate causes
are unknown.
Further, causes
never occur
subsequent to
the effect. It
is meaningless
to speak of a
cause following
an effect, or an
effect preceding
a cause. In
addition, the
effect is never
qualitatively
superior to, or
quantitatively
greater than,
the cause. This
knowledge is
responsible for
our formulation
of the law of
causality in
these words:
Every material
effect must have
an adequate
antecedent
cause. The river
did not turn
muddy because
the frog jumped
in; the book did
not fall from
the table
because the fly
lighted on it.
These are not
adequate causes.
For whatever
effects we
observe, we must
postulate
adequate
antecedent
causes—which
brings us back
to the original
question: What
caused the
Universe?
A theoretical
God is only
adequate to the
degree that we
envision him.
He is as
powerful as our
imagination
wants him to be.
There are but
three possible
answers to this
question: (1)
the Universe is
eternal; it has
always existed
and will always
exist; (2) the
Universe is not
eternal; rather,
it created
itself out of
nothing; (3) the
Universe is not
eternal, and did
not create
itself out of
nothing; rather,
it was created
by something (or
Someone)
anterior, and
superior, to
itself. These
three options
merit serious
consideration.
Is the Universe
Eternal?
The most
comfortable
position for the
person who does
not believe in
God is the idea
that the
Universe is
eternal, because
it avoids the
problem of a
beginning or
ending, and thus
the need for any
“first cause”
such as God. In
fact, it was to
avoid just such
a problem that
evolutionists
Thomas Gold,
Hermann Bondi,
and Fred Hoyle
developed the
Steady State
Theory.
Information had
come to light
that indicated
the Universe was
expanding. These
scientists
suggested that
at points in
space called
“irtrons”
hydrogen was
coming into
existence
from nothing.
As hydrogen
atoms arrived,
they had to “go”
somewhere, and
as they did,
they displaced
matter already
in existence,
causing the
Universe to
expand. Dr.
Hoyle suggested
that the atoms
of gaseous
hydrogen
gradually
condensed into
clouds of virgin
matter, that
within these
clouds new stars
and galaxies
formed, etc.
The universe
cannot be
eternal because
that would mean
time going
backwards would
have had to have
been realized.
Eternity is
boundless, so it
cannot be
realized by
anything, not
the universe,
not God, not by
even time
itself.
However,
it could be
perpetually
perennial.
It exists for a
time, evolves,
goes back out of
the dimension of
time, and then
starts all over.
Both the view of
Dr. Thompson and
the Steady State
Theory are
wrong.
However, the
Steady State
Theory was
doomed to
failure, in
part, because it
violated one of
the most
fundamental laws
of science—the
first law of
thermodynamics
(also referred
to as the law of
the conservation
of matter and/or
energy), which
states that
neither matter
nor energy may
be created or
destroyed in
nature.
Astronomer
Robert Jastrow
observed:
But the creation
of matter out of
nothing would
violate a
cherished
concept in
science—the
principle of the
conservation of
matter and
energy—which
states that
matter and
energy can be
neither created
nor destroyed.
Matter can be
converted into
energy, and vice
versa, but the
total amount of
all matter and
energy in the
Universe must
remain unchanged
forever. It is
difficult to
accept a theory
that violates
such a firmly
established
scientific fact
(1977, p. 32).
The Steady State
Theory
eventually was
relegated to the
relic heaps of
history. Yet
problems for
those who
advocated an
eternal Universe
continued to
multiply because
such a concept
violated the
second law of
thermodynamics
as well. Simply
stated, the
second law of
thermodynamics
dictates that as
energy is
employed to
perform work, it
is transformed
from a usable to
a nonusable
form. The
Universe is
“running down”
because energy
is becoming less
available for
use. As Jastrow
has remarked:
And concurrently
there was a
great deal of
discussion about
the fact that
the second law
of
thermodynamics,
applied to the
Cosmos,
indicates that
the Universe is
running down
like a clock. If
it is running
down, there must
have been a time
when it was
fully wound up.
Arthur Eddington,
the most
distinguished
astronomer of
his day, wrote:
“If our views
are right,
somewhere
between the
beginning of
time and the
present day we
must place the
winding up of
the universe.”
When that
occurred, and
Who or what
wound up the
Universe, were
questions that
bemused
theologians,
physicists and
astronomers,
particularly in
the 1920’s and
1930’s (1978,
pp. 48-49).
Other such
articles argue
that the running
down of the
universe is
contrary to
evolution
because "how
could there be a
running down
universe and
there be
evolution
causing things
to get more
complex at the
same time?
That would be
like arguing
that a power
supply in a
machine is
opposed to the
machine doing
any real complex
work and doing
complex things.
Naturally, in
reality as the
power source is
used, the energy
is used to do
productive work.
It is the very
running down of
the energy that
is used to make
complex
structures
through
evolution.
Doesn't the
battery in your
watch run your
watch before it
runs down?
Of course.
Likewise, as the
universe runs
down great
things would be
expected to
happen and do
happen.
A year before
making that
admission, Dr.
Jastrow made
another
important
concession when
he wrote:
Only as a result
of the most
recent
discoveries can
we say with a
fair degree of
confidence that
the world has
not existed
forever;... The
lingering
decline
predicted by
astronomers for
the end of the
world differs
from the
explosive
conditions they
have calculated
for its birth,
but the impact
is the same;
modern science
denies an
eternal
existence to the
Universe,
either in the
past or in the
future (1977,
pp. 19,30, emp.
added).
This is
nonsense,
apparently the
Big Bang theory
is being alluded
to. The
Big Bang states
that all the
matter in the
universe was at
one time at one
mathematical
point. It
does not state
that was the
absolute
beginning to the
universe.
Astrophysicists
are still
debating on
whether this is
a reoccurring
phenomenon, or
what?
They just aren't
sure yet.
Philosophically
speaking, the
universe is
almost certainly
perennial.
One needs to
keep in mind
that the only
reason that a
perpetual motion
machine can't
exist is because
all machines
lose energy to
their outside
environment.
However, the
universe is
different.
There is no
outside
environment for
it to lose
energy to.
Since all energy
is retained, it
very well could
operate
perpetually.
Note that
perpetually is
not the same as
infinitely.
The scientific
evidence states
clearly that the
Universe had a
beginning—something
eternal things
do not have. Nor
do eternal
things “run
down,” yet
clearly the
Universe is
doing just that,
as Dr. Jastrow
has noted. As
Henry Morris has
commented, “The
Second Law
requires the
universe to have
had a beginning”
(1974, p. 26).
Indeed, it does.
The Universe is
now known not to
be eternal.
Did the Universe
Create Itself
Out of Nothing?
In the past, it
would have been
practically
impossible to
find any
reputable
scientist who
would be willing
to advocate a
self-created
Universe. George
Davis, a
prominent
physicist of the
past generation,
explained why
when he wrote:
“No material
thing can create
itself.”
Further, Dr.
Davis affirmed
that this
statement
“cannot be
logically
attacked on the
basis of any
knowledge
available to us”
(1958, p. 71).
The Universe is
the created, not
the creator.
However, as
surprising as it
may seem, some
in the
scientific and
philosophical
communities have
stepped forward
to defend the
option that the
Universe simply
created itself
out of nothing.
Edward P. Tryon,
professor of
physics at the
City University
of New York,
wrote for
example: “In
1973, I proposed
that our
Universe had
been created
spontaneously
from nothing, as
a result of
established
principles of
physics. This
proposal
variously struck
people as
preposterous,
enchanting, or
both” (1984, p.
14). But the
real push for
the acceptance
of a
self-created
Universe came as
a result of an
article
published in the
May 1984 issue
of Scientific
American.
Under the title
of “The
Inflationary
Universe,”
evolutionists
Alan Guth and
Paul Steinhardt
wrote:
From a
historical point
of view,
probably the
most
revolutionary
aspect of the
inflationary
model is the
notion that all
the matter and
energy in the
observable
universe may
have emerged
from almost
nothing.... The
inflationary
model of the
universe
provides a
possible
mechanism by
which the
observed
universe could
have evolved
from an
infinitesimal
region. It is
then tempting to
go one step
further and
speculate that
the entire
Universe evolved
from literally
nothing
(1984, p. 128,
emp. added).
Such ideas as
those set forth
by Tryon, Guth,
Steinhardt, and
others have set
off a wave of
controversy
within the
scientific
community, as is
evident from
heated
discussions at
annual
scientific
meetings,
articles
published in
refereed
scientific
journals, books
written on a
scholarly level,
and even items
appearing in
popular science
magazines. For
example, in the
summer 1994
edition of the
Skeptical
Inquirer,
Ralph Estling of
Great Britain
wrote a stinging
rebuke of the
idea that the
Universe created
itself out of
nothing. Estling
suggested:
The problem
emerges in
science when
scientists leave
the realm of
science and
enter that of
philosophy and
metaphysics, too
often grandiose
names for mere
personal
opinion,
untrammeled by
empirical
evidence or
logical
analysis, and
wearing the mask
of deep wisdom.
And so they
conjure us an
entire Cosmos,
or myriads of
cosmoses,
suddenly,
inexplicably,
causelessly
leaping into
being out of—out
of Nothing
Whatsoever, for
no reason at
all, and
thereafter
expanding faster
than light into
more Nothing
Whatsoever....
They then intone
equations and
other ritual
mathematical
formulae and
look upon it and
pronounce it
good. I do not
think that what
these
cosmologists,
these quantum
theorists, these
universe-makers,
are doing is
science. I can’t
help feeling
that universes
are notoriously
disinclined to
spring into
being,
ready-made, out
of nothing
(1994,
18[4]:430).
Finally, we see
some real
thinking and
wisdom going on
in the mind of
Dr. Thompson.
He is right
here.
There is too
much fantasizing
that gets into
the headlines and too little
real thinking of
real substance
concerning this
issue.
But, when he
posits that God
created the
universe out of
nothing, then
what is the
difference?
We must realize,
however, that
nothing, true
nothingness may
have little
rational
meaning.
How can there be
just nothing: no
matter, no
energy, no time,
not even space
itself.
Even the Big
Bang resolves
down to a
"singularity,"
not nothing.
Absolute
nothingness is
probably
irrational and
impossible.
Consequently,
when matter
being spoken of
as springing
from nothing, it
is not really
impossible when
one realizes
that true
nothingness is
probably not really
even possible.
Something is
just springing
from something
that seems like
nothing to us.
Estling’s
article provoked
numerous letters
to the editor of
the Skeptical
Inquirer,
which were
printed, with
Estling’s
response, in the
January/February
1995 issue.
Estling wrote,
in part: “All
things begin
with
speculation,
science not
excluded. But if
no empirical
evidence is
eventually
forthcoming, or
can be
forthcoming, all
speculation is
barren.... There
is no evidence,
so far, that the
entire universe,
observable and
unobservable,
emerged from a
state of
absolute
Nothingness”
(1995,
19[1]:69-70).
Estling is
correct, of
course. There is
no evidence that
would allow
matter or energy
simply to “pop
into existence”
of its own
accord. This
suggestion is in
clear violation
of the first law
of
thermodynamics.
Furthermore, to
suggest that the
Universe created
itself is to
posit a
self-contradictory
position. Sproul
addressed this
when he wrote
that what an
atheist or
agnostic
...deems
possible for the
world to do—come
into being
without a
cause—is
something no
judicious
philosopher
would grant that
even God could
do. It is as
formally and
rationally
impossible for
God to come into
being without a
cause as it is
for the world to
do so.... For
something to
bring itself
into being it
must have the
power of being
within itself.
It must at least
have enough
causal power to
cause its own
being. If it
derives its
being from some
other source,
then it clearly
would not be
either
self-existent or
self-created. It
would be,
plainly and
simply, an
effect. Of
course, the
problem is
complicated by
the other
necessity we’ve
labored so
painstakingly to
establish: It
would have to
have the causal
power of being
before it was.
It would have to
have the power
of being before
it had any being
with which to
exercise that
power (1994, pp.
179,180).
That's exactly
right and that's
where a
perpetually
perennial
universe comes
into play.
The description
above describes
what I suggest
perfectly.
Science is based
on observation
and
reproducibility.
But when pressed
for the
reproducible,
empirical data
that document
their claim of a
self-created
Universe,
scientists and
philosophers are
at a loss to
produce those
data. Perhaps
this is why Alan
Guth lamented:
“In the end, I
must admit that
questions of
plausibility are
not logically
determinable and
depend somewhat
on intuition”
(1988,
11[2]:76)—which
is little more
than a fancy way
of saying, “I
certainly
wish this
were true, but I
could not
prove it to
you if my life
depended on it.”
Dr. Thompson
shouldn't be
using quotation
marks here.
Obviously, Alan
Guth did not say
what is in the
quotes.
The eminent
British
astrophysicist,
Stephen Hawking,
put the matter
in perspective
when he wrote: “The
new inflationary
model is now
dead as a
scientific
theory,
although a lot
of people do not
seem to have
heard of its
demise and are
still writing
papers on it as
if it were
viable” (1988,
p. 132, emp.
added). The
Universe did not
create itself.
Such an idea is
absurd,
philosophically
and
scientifically.
No, it certainly
did not; it is a
product of
logic. It
is necessary.
It's natural.
Nothing can
un-create it.
Was the Universe
Created?
Either the
Universe had a
beginning, or it
did not. But all
available
evidence
indicates that
the Universe did
have a
beginning. If
the Universe had
a beginning, it
either had a
cause or it did
not. One thing
we know
assuredly,
however: it is
correct—logically
and
scientifically—to
acknowledge that
the Universe had
a cause, because
the Universe is
an effect, and
requires an
adequate
antecedent
cause. Nothing
causeless
happens.
Then how can Dr.
Thompson justify
a belief in God?
Since it is
apparent that
the Universe it
not eternal, and
since likewise
it is apparent
that the
Universe could
not have created
itself, the only
remaining
alternative is
that the
Universe was
created by
something, or
Someone, that:
(a) existed
before it, i.e.,
some eternal,
uncaused First
Cause; (b) is
superior to
it—since the
created cannot
be superior to
the creator; and
(c) is of a
different
nature, since
the finite,
contingent
Universe of
matter is unable
to explain
itself (see
Jackson and
Carroll, n.d.,
2:98-154).
In connection
with this,
another
important fact
should be
considered. If
there ever had
been a time when
nothing
existed, then
there would be
nothing now. It
is a
self-evident
truth that
nothing produces
nothing. In view
of this,
since something
exists now, it
must follow
logically that
something has
existed forever.
As Sproul has
remarked:
Indeed, reason
demands that if
something
exists, either
the world or God
(or anything
else), then
something
must be
self-existent....
There must be a
self-existent
being of some
sort somewhere,
or nothing would
or could exist
(1994, pp.
179,185 emp. in
orig.).
Everything that
exists can be
classified as
either matter
(which includes
energy), or
mind. There
is no third
alternative. The
theist’s
argument, then,
is this:
1.
Everything that
exists is either
matter or mind.
2.
Something exists
now, so
something
eternal must
exist.
3.
Therefore,
either matter or
mind is eternal.
A.
Either matter or
mind is eternal.
B.
Matter is not
eternal, per the
evidence cited
above.
C.
Thus, it is mind
that is eternal.
In the past,
atheists
suggested that
the mind is
nothing more
than a function
of the brain,
which is matter;
thus the mind
and the brain
are the same,
and matter is
all that exists.
However, that
viewpoint is no
longer
intellectually
credible, as a
result of the
scientific
experiments of
British
neurologist, Sir
John Eccles. Dr.
Eccles won the
Nobel Prize for
distinguishing
that the mind is
more than merely
physical. He
showed that the
supplementary
motor area of
the brain may be
fired by mere
intention to
do something,
without the
motor cortex of
the brain (which
controls muscle
movements)
operating. In
effect, the mind
is to the brain
what a librarian
is to a library.
The former is
not reducible to
the latter.
Eccles explained
his methodology
in The Self
and Its Brain,
co-authored with
the renowned
philosopher of
science, Sir
Karl Popper (see
Popper and
Eccles, 1977).
In a discussion
centering on Dr.
Eccles’ work,
Norman Geisler
discussed the
concept of an
eternal,
all-knowing
Mind.
Further, this
infinite cause
of all that is
must be
all-knowing. It
must be knowing
because knowing
beings exist. I
am a knowing
being, and I
know it.... But
a cause can
communicate to
its effect only
what it has to
communicate. If
the effect
actually
possesses some
characteristic,
then this
characteristic
is properly
attributed to
its cause. The
cause cannot
give what it
does not have to
give. If my mind
or ability to
know is
received, then
there must be
Mind or Knower
who gave it to
me. The
intellectual
does not arise
from the
nonintellectual;
something cannot
arise from
nothing (1976,
p. 247).
From evidence
such as that
presented here,
Robert Jastrow
(an agnostic, by
his own
admission) was
forced to
conclude: “That
there are what I
or anyone would
call
supernatural
forces at work
is now, I think,
a scientifically
proven fact”
(1982, p. 18).
The evidence
speaks clearly
regarding the
existence of a
non-contingent,
eternal,
self-existent
Mind that
created this
Universe and
everything
within it.
While this
conclusion is
understandable,
it is not
actually
logically
tenable.
It is the same
conclusion that
I came to
myself, using
the same logical
steps before I
realized that
that the
principle of
parsimony would
remove something
as hypothetical
as God as being
a possible
cause, that a
thinking mind
would need to
have its own
conditioning and
antecedent
influences, and
that such a mind
would require
time to think in
and God must
exist outside of
time. If
what we deduce
must exist,
can't exist,
then there must
be a
mistake in our
logic.
As
with all such
God supporting
arguments, the
plausibility of
God itself is
never taken into
consideration
here, in that
how unlikely it
would be that
any "Being"
could just bring
matter into
existence by the
power of its
mind.
The argument
also does not
take into
consideration
other types of
minds, such as
that of alien
beings or any of
a myriad of
mythological
concepts of
creative beings,
could have been
responsible.
It also does not address the
issue of
circularity to
the
universe, or
that in some
sense it can be
perennial -- not
eternal, but
reoccurring.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause
and effect, and
the cosmological
argument based
upon that law,
have serious
implications in
every field of
human endeavor.
The Universe is
here, and must
have an adequate
antecedent
cause. In
addressing this
problem, R.L.
Wysong
commented:
Everyone
concludes
naturally and
comfortably that
highly ordered
and designed
items (machines,
houses, etc.)
owe existence to
a designer. It
is unnatural to
conclude
otherwise. But
evolution asks
us to break
stride from what
is natural to
believe and then
believe in that
which is
unnatural,
unreasonable,
and...unbelievable....
The basis for
this departure
from what is
natural and
reasonable to
believe is not
fact,
observation, or
experience but
rather
unreasonable
extrapolations
from abstract
probabilities,
mathematics, and
philosophy
(1976, p. 412,
first ellipsis
in orig.).
The fallacy here
is in assuming
that things in
the universe are
designs.
Not all complex
structures are
in fact designs.
Many complex
structures are
patterns and
patterns do not
need to be
designed.
The structures
that nature
produces are
complex patterns
of repetition
with subtle
variation.
There are
striking
similarities in
the way living
things are made,
but no such
similarities
exist among
designed
manufactured
products.
Dr. Wysong then
presented an
interesting
historical case
to illustrate
his point. Some
years ago,
scientists were
called to
Great Britain
to study orderly
patterns of
concentric rocks
and holes—a find
designated as
Stonehenge. As
studies
progressed, it
became apparent
that these
patterns had
been designed
specifically to
allow certain
astronomical
predictions.
Many questions
(e.g., how
ancient peoples
were able to
construct an
astronomical
observatory, how
the data derived
from their
studies were
used, etc.)
remain unsolved.
But one thing is
known—the
cause of
Stonehenge
was intelligent
design.
Yes, of course.
Now, suggested
Dr. Wysong,
compare
Stonehenge to
the situation
paralleling the
origin of the
Universe, and of
life itself. We
study life,
observe its
functions,
contemplate its
complexity
(which defies
duplication even
by intelligent
men with the
most advanced
methodology and
technology), and
what are we to
conclude?
We should
conclude that
things in nature
aren't designs.
If things in
nature are
designs in the
same sense as
what humans
make, then how
could we even
distinguish
between them?
It is actually
very easy to
distinguish
between what
nature makes and
intelligently
designed objects
that humans
make.
Things in nature
are patterns.
Stonehenge
might have
been produced by
the erosion of a
mountain, or by
catastrophic
natural forces
working in
conjunction with
meteorites to
produce rock
formations and
concentric
holes. But what
scientist or
philosopher ever
would suggest
such an idea?
No one ever
could be
convinced that
Stonehenge “just
happened” by
accident, yet
atheists and
agnostics expect
us to believe
that this highly
ordered,
well-designed
Universe, and
the complicated
life it
contains, “just
happened.” To
accept such an
idea is, to use
Dr. Wysong’s
words, “to break
stride from what
is natural to
believe” because
the conclusion
is unreasonable,
unwarranted, and
unsupported by
the facts at
hand. The cause
simply is not
adequate to
produce the
effect.
The central
message of the
Cosmological
Argument, and
the law of cause
and effect upon
which it is
based, is this:
Every material
effect must have
an adequate
antecedent
cause. The
Universe is
here;
intelligent life
is here;
morality is
here; love is
here. What is
their adequate
antecedent
cause? Since the
effect never can
precede, or be
greater than the
cause, it stands
to reason that
the Cause of
life must be a
living
Intelligence
that Itself is
both moral and
loving. When the
Bible records,
“In the
beginning,
God...,” it
makes known to
us just such a
First Cause.
REFERENCES
Davis, George
(1958),
“Scientific
Revelations
Point to a God,”
The Evidence
of God in an
Expanding
Universe,
ed. John C.
Monsma (New
York:
G.P. Putnam’s
Sons).
Estling, Ralph
(1994), “The
Scalp-Tinglin’,
Mind-Blowin’,
Eye-Poppin’,
Heart-Wrenchin’,
Stomach-Churnin’,
Foot-Stumpin’,
Great Big
Doodley Science
Show!!!,”
Skeptical
Inquirer,
18[4]:428-430,
Summer.
Estling, Ralph
(1995), “Letter
to the Editor,”
Skeptical
Inquirer,
19[1]:69-70,
January/February.
Geisler, Norman
L. (1976),
Christian
Apologetics
(Grand
Rapids,
MI:
Baker).
Guth, Alan
(1988),
Interview in
Omni,
11[2]:75-76,78-79,94,96-99,
November.
Guth, Alan and
Paul Steinhardt
(1984), “The
Inflationary
Universe,”
Scientific
American,
250:116-128,
May.
Hawking, Stephen
W. (1988), A
Brief History of
Time (New
York:
Bantam).
Hull,
David (1974),
Philosophy of
Biological
Science
(Englewood
Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall)
Jackson,
Wayne (1974),
Fortify Your
Faith
(Stockton, CA:
Courier
Publications).
Jackson, Wayne
and Tom Carroll
(no date), “The
Jackson-Carroll
Debate on
Atheism and
Ethics,”
Thrust, ed.
Jerry Moffitt,
2:98-154.
Jastrow, Robert
(1977), Until
the Sun Dies
(New
York:
W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert
(1978), God
and the
Astronomers
(New
York:
W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert
(1982), “A
Scientist Caught
Between Two
Faiths,”
Interview with
Bill Durbin,
Christianity
Today,
August 6.
Morris, Henry M.
(1974),
Scientific
Creationism
(San
Diego,
CA:
Creation-Life
Publishers).
Popper, Karl R.
and John C.
Eccles (1977),
The Self and
Its Brain (New
York:
Springer
International).
Sproul, R.C.
(1994), Not A
Chance (Grand
Rapids,
MI:
Baker).
Tryon, Edward P.
(1984), “What
Made the
World?,” New
Scientist,
101:14-16, March
8.
Wysong, R.L.
(1976), The
Creation/Evolution
Controversy
(East
Lansing,
MI: Inquiry
Press).
The Case for the Existence of God [Part II]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. |
|
One of the laws
of thought
employed in the
field of logic
is the law of
rationality,
which states
that one should
accept as true
only those
conclusions for
which there is
adequate
evidence. This
is sensible, for
accepting as
true a
conclusion for
which there is
no evidence, or
inadequate
evidence, would
be irrational.
In establishing
the prima
facie case
for the
existence of
God, theists
present—through
logic, clear
reasoning, and
factual
data—arguments
adequate to
justify the
acceptance of
the conclusion
that God exists.
The approach is
intended to be
positive in
nature, and to
establish a
proposition for
which adequate
evidence is
available.
The evidence
used to
substantiate the
theist’s
proposition
concerning God’s
existence may
take many forms.
This should not
be surprising
since, if He
does exist, God
would be the
greatest of all
realities. His
existence,
therefore, could
be extrapolated
not from just a
single line of
reasoning, but
from numerous
avenues. As one
writer of the
past suggested:
The reality of
such a Being can
be firmly
established only
by concurrent
reasons coming
from various
realms of
existence, and
approved by
various powers
of the human
spirit. It is a
conclusion that
cannot be
reached without
the aid of
arguments
inadequate by
themselves to so
great a result,
yet valid in
their place,
proving each
some part of the
great truth;
proofs
cumulative and
complementary,
each requiring
others for its
completion
(Clarke, 1912,
p. 104).
The various
arguments
presented by
theists, all
combined, make
an ironclad case
for God’s
existence. Where
one particular
argument fails
to impress or
convince an
inquirer,
another will
avail.
Considered
cumulatively,
the evidence is
adequate to
justify the
intended
conclusion. It
is my purpose
here to present
and discuss
additional
evidence
substantiating
the proposition:
God exists.
DESIGN IN
NATURE—THE
TELEOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
In contending
for the
existence of
God, theists
often employ the
Teleological
Argument.
“Teleology” has
reference to
purpose or
design. Thus,
this approach
suggests that
where there is
purposeful
design, there
must be a
designer. The
deduction being
made, of course,
is that order,
planning, and
design in a
system are
indicative of
intelligence,
purpose, and
specific intent
on the part of
the originating
cause. In
logical form,
the theist’s
argument may be
presented as
follows:
1.
If the Universe
evinces
purposeful
design, there
must have been a
designer.
2.
The Universe
does evince
purposeful
design.
3.
Thus, the
Universe must
have had a
designer.
This correct
form of logical
reasoning, and
the implications
that flow from
it, have not
escaped the
attention of
those who do not
believe in God.
Paul Ricci, an
atheistic
philosopher and
professor, has
written that
“...it’s true
that everything
designed has a
designer...”
(1986, p. 190).
In fact, Mr.
Ricci even
conceded that
the statement, “
‘Everything
designed has a
designer,’ is an
analytically
true statement”
and thus
requires no
formal proof (p.
190). Apparently
Mr. Ricci
understands that
one does not get
a poem without a
poet, a law
without a
lawgiver, a
painting without
a painter, or
design without a
designer.
He is in good
company among
his disbelieving
counterparts.
For example,
atheistic
evolutionist
Richard Lewontin
made the
following
admission in an
article he
authored for
Scientific
American:
Life forms are
more than simply
multiple and
diverse,
however.
Organisms fit
remarkably well
into the
external world
in which they
live. They have
morphologies,
physiologies and
behaviors that
appear to
have been
carefully and
artfully
designed to
enable each
organism to
appropriate the
world around it
for its own
life. It was the
marvelous fit of
organisms to the
environment,
much more than
the great
diversity of
forms, that was
the chief
evidence of a
Supreme Designer
(1978,
239[3]:213, emp.
added).
To be fair to
both of these
authors, and
others like
them, let me
quickly point
out that while
they agree with
the thrust of
the theist’s
argument (i.e.,
that design
leads inevitably
to a designer),
they do not
believe that
there is
evidence
warranting the
conclusion that
a Supreme
Designer exists,
and they
therefore have
rejected any
belief in God.
Their
disagreement
with the theist
would center on
statement number
two (the minor
premise) in the
above syllogism.
While admitting
that design
demands a
designer, they
would deny that
there is design
in nature
providing proof
of the existence
of a Great
Designer.
A good example
of such a denial
can be found in
a book written
by British
evolutionist,
Richard Dawkins.
During the
1800s, William
Paley employed
his now-famous
“watch
argument.” Paley
argued that if
one were to
discover a watch
lying upon the
ground, and were
to examine it
closely, the
design inherent
in the watch
would be enough
to force the
conclusion that
there must have
been a
watchmaker.
Paley continued
his line of
argumentation to
suggest that the
design inherent
in the Universe
should be enough
to force the
conclusion that
there must have
been a Great
Designer.
However, the
argument implies
that the watch
has some
qualities that
make it stand
out from its
surroundings.
It implies that
the watch is
fundamentally
different from
the beach, in
that the beach
itself does not
seem to have
been designed,
or that the
beach and the
watch were made
in a very
dissimilar way.
In
1986, Dawkins
published The
Blind Watchmaker,
which was
intended to put
to rest once and
for all Paley’s
argument. The
dust jacket of
Dawkins’ book
made that point
clear:
There may be
good reasons for
belief in God,
but the argument
from design is
not one of
them....
[D]espite all
appearances to
the contrary,
there is no
watchmaker in
nature beyond
the blind forces
of physics....
Natural
selection, the
unconscious,
automatic, blind
yet essentially
nonrandom
process that
Darwin
discovered, and
that we now
understand to be
the explanation
for the
existence and
form of all
life, has no
purpose in mind.
It has no mind
and no mind’s
eye. It does not
plan for the
future. It has
no vision, no
foresight, no
sight at all. If
it can be said
to play the role
of watchmaker in
nature, it is
the blind
watchmaker
(1986, emp. in
orig.).
Good for Dawkins!
The disagreement
between the
theist and
atheist is not
whether design
demands a
designer.
Rather, the
point of
contention is
whether or not
there is
design in nature
adequate to
substantiate the
conclusion that
a Designer does,
in fact, exist.
This is where
the Teleological
Argument is of
benefit.
Any true
"design"
requires a
designer because
that's what the
word "design"
means -- it was
planned -- it
was designed.
What Thompson
apparently means
is, is there a
large enough
amount of
complexity in
the universe for
it to be viewed
as a
design? Actually
what we see in
nature are
patterns, not
designs.
Design of the
Universe
Our Universe
operates in
accordance with
exact scientific
laws. The
precision of the
Universe, and
the exactness of
these laws,
allow scientists
to launch
rockets to the
Moon, with the
full knowledge
that, upon their
arrival, they
can land within
a few feet of
their intended
target. Such
precision and
exactness also
allow
astronomers to
predict
solar/lunar
eclipses years
in advance, or
to determine
when Halley’s
Comet can be
seen once again
from the Earth.
Science writer
Lincoln Barnett
once observed:
This functional
harmony of
nature
Berkeley,
Descartes, and
Spinoza
attributed to
God. Modern
physicists who
prefer to solve
their problems
without recourse
to God (although
this seems to be
more difficult
all the time)
emphasize that
nature
mysteriously
operates on
mathematical
principles. It
is the
mathematical
orthodoxy of the
Universe that
enables
theorists like
Einstein to
predict and
discover natural
laws, simply by
the solution of
equations (1959,
p. 22).
Yes, so that
proves the
atheistic point; the
universe in a
function of
mathematics,
logic, and
produces patters.
The precision,
complexity, and
orderliness
within the
Universe are not
in dispute;
writers such as
Ricci, Dawkins,
and Lewontin
acknowledge as
much. But while
atheists
willingly
concede
complexity, and
even order, they
are not prepared
to concede
design because
the implication
of such a
concession would
demand a
Designer. Is
there evidence
of design?
The atheist
claims no such
evidence exists.
The theist,
however, affirms
that it does,
and offers the
following
information in
support of that
affirmation.
At least
Thompson is now
clear and seems
to realize that
any design
requires a
designer.
Ok, let's see
the proof of
design:
We live in a
tremendously
large Universe.
While its outer
limits have not
been measured,
it is estimated
to be as much as
20 billion light
years in
diameter (i.e.,
the distance it
would take light
to travel across
the Universe at
a speed of over
186,000 miles
per second; see
Lawton, 1981,
89[1]:105).
There are an
estimated one
billion galaxies
in the Universe
(Lawton, 1981,
89[1]:98), and
an estimated 25
sextillion
stars. The Milky
Way galaxy in
which we live
contains over
100 billion
stars, and is so
large that even
traveling at the
speed of light
would require
100,000 years to
cross its
diameter. Light
travels in one
year
approximately
5.87 x 1012
miles; in
100,000 years,
that would be
5.87 x 1017
miles, or 587
quadrillion
miles just to
cross the
diameter of a
single galaxy.
If we drew a map
of the Milky Way
galaxy, and
represented the
Earth and Sun as
two dots one
inch apart (thus
a scale of one
inch equals 93
million
miles—the
distance between
the Earth and
the Sun), we
would need a map
at least four
miles wide to
locate the next
nearest star,
and a map 25,000
miles wide to
reach the center
of our galaxy.
Without doubt,
this is a rather
impressive
Universe.
Yes, and
more current
figures are more
impressive.
The universe is
more like 156
billion light
years across and the
stars number
about 70
sextillion.
This only shows
the absurdity in
believing some
kind of Being
created it.
We are to
believe that
some thinking
being brought
all that into
existence by the
power of his
mind.
Yet, while the
size itself is
impressive, the
inherent design
is even more so.
Ok, now maybe
we'll get to
some proof of
design. The Sun’s
interior
temperature is
estimated to be
over 20 million
degrees Celsius
(Lawton, 1981,
89[1]:102). The
Earth, however,
is located at
exactly the
correct distance
from the Sun to
receive the
proper amount of
heat and
radiation to
sustain life as
we know it. If
the Earth were
moved just 10%
closer to the
Sun (about 10
million miles),
far too much
heat and
radiation would
be absorbed. If
the Earth were
moved just 10%
further from the
Sun, too little
heat would be
absorbed. Either
scenario would
spell doom for
life on the
Earth.
Well what about
the other
planets?
They are too
close or too
far, and don't
have life.
No great miracle
there.
Obviously, some
planets are
going to be at
the optimum
distance from
their sun.
The Earth is
rotating on its
axis at 1,000
miles per hour
at the equator,
and moving
around the Sun
at 70,000 miles
per hour
(approximately
19 miles per
second), while
the Sun and its
solar system are
moving through
space at 600,000
miles per hour
in an orbit so
large it would
take over 220
million years
just to complete
a single orbit.
Interestingly,
however, as the
Earth moves in
its orbit around
the Sun, it
departs from a
straight line
He must mean a
perfect circle,
not a straight
line. by
only one-ninth
of an inch every
eighteen miles.
If it departed
by one-eighth of
an inch, we
would come so
close to the Sun
that we would be
incinerated; if
it departed by
one-tenth of an
inch, we would
find ourselves
so far from the
Sun that we
would all freeze
to death (Science
Digest,
1981,
89[1]:124).
This is really
pulling the wool
over a person's
eyes using
numbers.
It is the total
variation that's
important, and
the total
variation is 3.3
percent, which
is not all that
fine tuned.
If God designed
the orbit of the
earth, then why
isn't it
perfect? The
Earth is poised
some 240,000
miles from the
Moon, whose
gravitational
pull produces
ocean tides. If
the Moon were
moved closer to
the Earth by
just a fifth,
the tides would
be so enormous
that twice a day
they would reach
35-50 feet high
over most of the
Earth’s surface.
What would
happen if the
rotation rate of
the Earth were
halved, or
doubled? If it
were halved, the
seasons would be
doubled in their
length, which
would cause such
harsh heat and
cold over much
of the Earth
that it would be
difficult, if
not impossible,
to grow enough
food to feed the
Earth’s
population. If
the rotation
rate were
doubled, the
length of each
season would be
halved, and it
would be
difficult or
impossible to
grow enough food
to feed the
Earth’s
population. The
Earth is tilted
on its axis at
exactly 23.5
degrees. Were
that tilt to be
reduced to zero,
much of the
Earth’s water
would accumulate
around the two
poles, leaving
vast deserts in
its place. If
the atmosphere
surrounding the
Earth were much
thinner,
meteorites could
strike our
planet with
greater force
and frequency,
causing
worldwide
devastation.
The oceans
provide a huge
reservoir of
moisture that
constantly is
evaporating and
condensing, thus
falling upon the
land as
refreshing rain.
It is a
well-known fact
that water heats
and cools at a
much slower rate
than a solid
land mass, which
explains why
desert regions
can be
blistering hot
in the daytime
and freezing
cold at night.
Water, however,
holds its
temperature
longer, and
provides a sort
of natural
heating/air-conditioning
system for the
land areas of
the Earth.
Temperature
extremes would
be much more
erratic than
they are, were
it not for the
fact that
approximately
four-fifths of
the Earth is
covered with
water. In
addition, humans
and animals
inhale oxygen
and exhale
carbon dioxide.
On the other
hand, plants
take in carbon
dioxide and give
off oxygen. We
depend upon the
world of botany
for our oxygen
supply, but
often fail to
realize that
approximately
90% of our
oxygen comes
from microscopic
plants in the
seas (see
Asimov, 1975,
2:116). If our
oceans were
appreciably
smaller, we soon
would be out of
air to breathe.
Can a person
reasonably be
expected to
believe that
these exacting
requirements for
life as we know
it have been met
“just by
accident”?
Yes, when one
considers there
are 70
sextillion stars
and probably
about 5 to 10
times that many
planets. The
Earth is exactly
the right
distance from
the Sun; it is
exactly the
right distance
from the Moon;
it has exactly
the right
diameter; it has
exactly the
right
atmospheric
pressure; it has
exactly the
right tilt; it
has exactly the
right amount of
oceanic water;
it has exactly
the right weight
and mass; and so
on. Were this
many
requirements to
be met in any
other essential
area of life,
the idea that
they had been
provided “just
by accident”
would be
dismissed
immediately as
ludicrous. Yet
atheists and
agnostics
suggest that the
Universe, the
Earth, and life
on the Earth are
all here as a
result of
fortuitous
accidents.
Physicist John Gribbin (1983),
writing on the
numerous
specific
requirements
necessary for
life on our
planet,
emphasized in
great detail
both the nature
and essentiality
of those
requirements,
yet curiously
chose to title
his article,
“Earth’s Lucky
Break”—as if all
of the
precision,
orderliness, and
intricate design
in the Universe
could be
explained by
postulating that
the Earth simply
received, in a
roll of the
cosmic dice, a
“lucky break.”
He apparently
chose the title
because he
didn't think a
God was required
to have done it.
The problem with
this type of
argument is that
it doesn't take
into
consideration
the unimaginable
amount of stars
and orbiting
planets that
must exist.
The article
admits that
there are 25
sextillion stars
in the universe.
The number is
currently
estimated to
actually be 70
sextillion.
That's more than
ten times the
number of grains
of sand there
are
in all the
beaches and
deserts on
earth.
With such
abundant
possible places
for potential life, it is
only likely that
the factors
necessary for
life would come
together at some
of those
locations by
chance.
If God actually
brought all of
those factors
together here on
earth, we must
wonder what to
make of all the
other planets
that are not
suitable for
life. Why
would an
intelligent God
make so many
useless planets?
For more than a
decade and a
half, British
evolutionist Sir
Fred Hoyle has
stressed the
insurmountable
problems with
such thinking,
and has
addressed
specifically the
many problems
faced by those
who defend the
idea of a
naturalistic
origin of life
on Earth. In
fact, Dr. Hoyle
described the
atheistic
concept that
disorder gives
rise to order in
a rather
picturesque
manner when he
observed that
“the chance that
higher forms
have emerged in
this way is
comparable with
the chance that
a tornado
sweeping through
a junk-yard
might assemble a
Boeing 747 from
the materials
therein” (1981b,
p. 105). Dr.
Hoyle, even went
so far as to
draw the
following
conclusion:
Once we see,
however, that
the probability
of life
originating at
random is so
utterly
miniscule as to
make the random
concept absurd,
it becomes
sensible to
think that the
favourable
properties of
physics on which
life depends,
are in every
respect
deliberate....
It is therefore
almost
inevitable that
our own measure
of intelligence
must reflect in
a valid way the
higher
intelligences...even
to the extreme
idealized limit
of God
(Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe,
1981, pp.
141,144, emp. in
orig.).
Atheist Richard
Dawkins was
forced to admit:
“The more
statistically
improbable a
thing is, the
less we can
believe that it
just happened by
blind chance.
Superficially,
the obvious
alternative to
chance is an
intelligent
Designer”
(1982, p. 130,
emp. added).
That is the very
conclusion
theists have
drawn from the
available
evidence—in
keeping with the
law of
rationality. The
statistical
improbability of
the Universe
“just happening
by blind chance”
is staggering.
The only
alternative is
an Intelligent
Designer—God.
But, what are
the mathematical
chances of what
is necessary to
cause a God to
exist ever
coming together?
Believing there
is something
that doesn't
require an
explanation just
renders that
something to be
a substitute for
an explanation
rather than an
explanation.
Design of the
Human Body
Many years ago,
the ancient
scholar
Augustine
observed: “Men
go abroad to
wonder at the
height of
mountains, at
the huge waves
of the sea, at
the long course
of the rivers,
at the vast
compass of the
ocean, at the
circular motion
of the stars;
and they pass by
themselves
without
wondering.”
Indeed, while we
stand in
amazement at so
many stunning
scenes from our
unique Universe,
we often fail to
stand equally
amazed at the
marvelous
creation of man.
According to
those who do not
believe in God,
the human body
is little more
than the result
of a set of
fortuitous
circumstances
credited to that
mythical lady,
“Mother Nature.”
Yet such a
suggestion does
not fit the
actual facts of
the case, as
even
evolutionists
have been forced
to recognize
from time to
time. The late
George Gaylord
Simpson of
Harvard once
suggested that
in man one finds
“the most highly
endowed
organization of
matter that has
yet appeared on
the earth...”
(1949, p. 293).
Another
evolutionist
observed:
When you come
right down to
it, the most
incredible
creation in the
universe is
you—with your
fantastic senses
and strengths,
your ingenious
defense systems,
and mental
capabilities so
great you can
never use them
to the fullest.
Your body is a
structural
masterpiece more
amazing than
science fiction
(Guinness, 1987,
p. 5).
Can one
reasonably be
expected to
conclude that
the “structural
masterpiece” of
the human
body—with its
“ingenious”
systems and
“highly endowed
organization”—is
the result of
blind chance
operating over
eons of time in
nature as
atheism
suggests? Or
would it be more
in keeping with
the facts of the
matter to
suggest that the
human body is
the result of
purposeful
design by a
Master Designer?
For
organizational
purposes, the
human body may
be considered at
four different
levels (see
Jackson, 1993,
pp. 5-6). First,
there are cells,
representing the
smallest unit of
life. Second,
there are
tissues (muscle
tissue, nerve
tissue, etc.),
which are groups
of the same kind
of cells
carrying on the
same kind of
activity. Third,
there are organs
(heart, liver,
etc.), which are
groups of
tissues working
together in
unison. Fourth,
there are
systems
(reproductive
system,
circulatory
system, etc.),
which are
composed of
groups of organs
carrying out
specific bodily
functions. While
we will not have
the space in
this article to
examine each of
them, an
investigation of
these various
levels of
organization,
and of the human
body as a whole,
leads
inescapably to
the conclusion
that there is
intelligent
design at work.
As Wayne Jackson
noted: “It is
therefore quite
clear...that the
physical body
has been
marvelously
designed and
intricately
organized, for
the purpose of
facilitating
human existence
upon the planet
Earth” (1993, p.
6). In light of
the following
facts, such a
statement is
certainly
justified.
A human body is
composed of over
30 different
kinds of cells
(red blood
cells, white
blood cells,
nerve cells,
etc.), totalling
approximately
100 trillion
cells in an
average adult
(Beck, 1971, p.
189). These
cells come in a
variety of sizes
and shapes, with
different
functions and
life
expectancies.
For example,
some cells
(e.g., male
spermatazoa) are
so small that
20,000 would fit
inside a capital
“O” from a
standard
typewriter, each
being only 0.05
mm long. Some
cells, placed
end-to-end,
would make only
one inch if
6,000 were
assembled
together. Yet
all the cells of
the human body,
if set
end-to-end,
would encircle
the Earth over
200 times. Even
the largest cell
of the human
body, the female
ovum, is
unbelievably
small, being
only 0.01 of an
inch in
diameter. Cells
have three major
components.
First, each cell
is composed of a
cell membrane
that encloses
the organism.
Second, inside
the cell is a
three-dimensional
cytoplasm—a
watery matrix
containing
specialized
organelles.
Third, within
the cytoplasm is
the nucleus,
which contains
most of the
genetic material
and serves as
the control
center of the
cell.
The lipoprotein
cell membrane
(lipids/proteins/lipids)
is approximately
0.06-0.08 of a
micrometer
thick, yet
allows selective
transport into,
and out of, the
cell.
Evolutionist
Ernest Borek has
observed: “The
membrane
recognizes with
its uncanny
molecular memory
the hundreds of
compounds
swimming around
it and permits
or denies
passage
according to the
cell’s
requirements”
(1973, p. 5).
Inside the
cytoplasm, there
are over 20
different
chemical
reactions
occurring at any
one time, with
each cell
containing five
major components
for: (1)
communication;
(2) waste
disposal; (3)
nutrition; (4)
repair; and (5)
reproduction.
Within this
watery matrix
there are such
organelles as
the mitochondria
(over 1,000 per
cell in many
instances) that
provide the cell
with its energy.
The endoplasmic
reticulum is
“believed to be
a transport
system designed
to carry
materials from
one part of the
cell to the
other”
(Pfeiffer, 1964,
p. 13).
Ribosomes are
miniature
protein-producing
factories. Golgi
bodies store the
proteins
manufactured by
the ribosomes.
Lysozomes within
the cytoplasm
function as
garbage disposal
units.
The nucleus is
the control
center of the
cell, and is
separated from
the cytoplasm by
a nuclear
membrane. Within
the nucleus is
the genetic
machinery of the
cell
(chromosomes and
genes containing
deoxyribonucleic
acid—DNA).
The
DNA
is a
supermolecule
that carries the
coded
information for
the replication
of the cell. If
the
DNA
from a single
human cell were
removed from the
nucleus and
unraveled (it is
found in the
cell in a spiral
configuration),
it would be
approximately
six feet long,
and would
contain over a
billion
biochemical
steps. It has
been estimated
that if all the
DNA
in an adult
human were
placed
end-to-end, it
would reach to
the Sun and back
(186 million
miles) 400
times.
It should also
be noted that
the
DNA
molecule does
something that
we as humans
have yet to
accomplish: it
stores coded
information in a
chemical format,
and then uses a
biologic agent (RNA)
to decode and
activate it. As
Darrel Kautz has
stated: “Human
technology has
not yet advanced
to the point of
storing
information
chemically
as it is in the
DNA
molecule” (1988,
p. 45, emp. in
orig.; see also
Jackson, 1993,
pp. 11-12). If
transcribed into
English, the
DNA
in a single
human cell would
fill a 1,000
volume set of
encyclopedias
approximately
600 pages each
(Gore, 1976, p.
357). Yet just
as amazing is
the fact that
all the genetic
information
needed to
reproduce the
entire human
population
(about five
billion people)
could be placed
into a space of
about one-eighth
of a square
inch. In
comparing the
amount of
information
contained in the
DNA
molecule with a
much larger
computer
microchip,
evolutionist
Irvin Block
remarked: “We
marvel at the
feats of memory
and
transcription
accomplished by
computer
microchips, but
these are
gargantuan
compared to the
protein granules
of
deoxyribonucleic
acid,
DNA”
(1980, p. 52).
In an article he
authored for
Encyclopaedia
Britannica,
Carl Sagan
observed that
“The information
content of a
simple cell has
been estimated
as around 1012
bits [i.e., one
trillion—BT]...”
(1974, 10:894).
To emphasize to
the reader the
enormity of this
figure, Dr.
Sagan then noted
that if one were
to count every
letter in every
word of every
book in the
world’s largest
library (over
ten million
volumes), the
final tally
would be
approximately a
trillion
letters. Thus, a
single cell
contains the
equivalent
information
content of every
book in the
world’s largest
library of more
than ten million
volumes! Every
rational person
recognizes that
not one of the
books in such a
library “just
happened.”
Rather, each and
every one is the
result of
intelligence and
painstaking
design.
So, are we to
believe that God
painstakingly
designed each of
70 sextillion
stars and each
of their
accompanying
planets?
And each animal?
And each DNA
molecule?
Obviously, books
and stars,
planets,
animals, and DNA
must come into
existence in
very dissimilar
ways.
What, then, may
we say about the
infinitely more
complex genetic
code found
within the
DNA
in each cell?
Sir Fred Hoyle
concluded that
the notion that
the code’s
complexity could
be arrived at by
chance is
“nonsense of a
high order”
(1981a, p. 527).
In their classic
text on the
origin of life,
Thaxton,
Bradley, and
Olsen addressed
the implications
of the genetic
code found
within the
DNA
molecule.
God, invented
genetic codes,
but requires no
such code of his
own?
We know that in
numerous cases
certain effects
always have
intelligent
causes, such as
dictionaries,
sculptures,
machines and
paintings. We
reason by
analogy that
similar effects
have intelligent
causes. For
example, after
looking up to
see “BUY
FORD”
spelled out in
smoke across the
sky we infer the
presence of a
skywriter even
if heard or saw
no airplane. We
would similarly
conclude the
presence of
intelligent
activity were we
to come upon an
elephant-shaped
topiary in a
cedar forest.
Yes, but not the
forest.
These kinds of
analogies are
always so
self-defeating.
For the analogy
to work we have
to view the
forest as not
being
intelligently
designed
compared to the
topiary -- which
is contrary to
the whole point
of the argument
that everything
is nature is
intelligently
designed.
In like manner
an intelligible
communication
via radio signal
from some
distant galaxy
would be widely
hailed as
evidence of an
intelligent
source. Why then
doesn’t the
message sequence
on the
DNA
molecule also
constitute
prima facie
evidence for an
intelligent
source? After
all,
DNA
information is
not just
analogous to a
message sequence
such as Morse
code, it is
such a message
sequence....
Well, if you
want to believe
aliens did both,
there might be a
point.
But, unless you
could believe
God did both,
you can't
believe God did
it either.
We believe that
if this question
is considered,
it will be seen
that most often
it is answered
in the negative
simply because
it is thought to
be inappropriate
to bring a
Creator into
science (1984,
pp. 211-212,
emp. in orig.).
The complexity
and intricacy of
the
DNA
molecule—combined
with the
staggering
amount of
chemically-coded
information it
contains—speak
unerringly to
the fact that
this
“supermolecule”
simply could not
have happened by
blind chance. As
Andrews has
observed:
Then perhaps
aliens did do
it! Why
must it point to
a God?
It is not
possible for a
code, of any
kind, to arise
by chance or
accident.... A
code is the work
of an
intelligent
mind. Even the
cleverest dog or
chimpanzee could
not work out a
code of any
kind. It is
obvious then
that chance
cannot do it....
This could no
more have been
the work of
chance or
accident than
could the
“Moonlight
Sonata” be
played by mice
running up and
down the
keyboard of my
piano! Codes do
not arise from
chaos (1978, pp.
28-29).
Indeed, codes do
not arise from
chaos. As
Dawkins
correctly
remarked: “The
more
statistically
improbable a
thing is, the
less we can
believe that it
just happened by
blind chance.
Superficially,
the obvious
alternative to
chance is an
intelligent
Designer”
(1982, p. 130,
emp. added).
That is the
exact point the
theist is
making: an
intelligent
Designer is
demanded by the
evidence.
CONCLUSION
Atheistic
philosopher,
Paul Ricci, has
suggested that
“Although many
have difficulty
understanding
the tremendous
order and
complexity
of functions of
the human body
(the eye, for
example),
there is no
obvious designer”
(1986, p. 191,
emp. added). The
only people who
“have difficulty
understanding
the tremendous
order and
complexity”
found in the
Universe are
those who have
“refused to have
God in their
knowledge”
(Romans
1:28).
Such people can
parrot the
phrase that
“there is no
obvious
designer,” but
their arguments
are not
convincing. One
does not get a
poem without a
poet, or a law
without a
lawgiver. One
does not get a
painting without
a painter, or a
musical score
without a
composer. And
just as surely,
one does not get
purposeful
design without a
designer. The
design inherent
in the Universe
is evident—from
the macrocosm to
the
microcosm—and is
sufficient to
draw the
conclusion
demanded by the
evidence, in
keeping with the
law of
rationality. God
does exist.
REFERENCES
Andrews, E.H.
(1978), From
Nothing to
Nature (Welwyn,
Hertfordshire,
England:
Evangelical
Press).
Asimov, Isaac
(1975), Guide
to Science (London:
Pelican Books).
Barnett,
Lincoln (1959),
The Universe
and Dr. Einstein
(New York:
Mentor).
Beck, William
(1971), Human
Design (New
York:
Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich).
Block, Irvin
(1980), “The
Worlds Within
You,” Science
Digest
special edition,
pp. 49-53,118,
September/October.
Borek, Ernest
(1973), The
Sculpture of
Life (New
York:
Columbia
University
Press).
Clarke, William
N. (1912), An
Outline of
Christian
Theology (New
York:
Charles
Scribner’s
Sons).
Dawkins, Richard
(1982), “The
Necessity of
Darwinism,”
New Scientist,
94:130-132,
April 15.
Dawkins, Richard
(1986), The
Blind Watchmaker
(New
York:
W.W. Norton).
Gore, Rick
(1976),
National
Geographic,
September.
Gribbin, John
(1983), “Earth’s
Lucky Break,”
Science Digest,
91[5]:36-37,40,102,
May.
Guinness, Alma
E., ed. (1987),
ABC's of the
Human Body (Pleasantville,
NY: Reader's
Digest).
Hoyle, Fred
(1981a), “The
Big Bang in
Astronomy,”
New Scientist,
92:521-527,
November 19.
Hoyle, Fred
(1981b), “Hoyle
on Evolution,”
Nature,
294:105,148,
November 12.
Hoyle, Fred and
Chandra
Wickramasinghe
(1981),
Evolution from
Space (London:
J.M. Dent &
Sons).
Jackson, Wayne
(1993), The
Human Body:
Accident or
Design? (Stockton,
CA: Courier
Publications).
Kautz, Darrel
(1988), The
Origin of Living
Things (Milwaukee,
WI: Privately
published by the
author).
Lawton,
April (1981),
“From Here to
Infinity,”
Science Digest,
89[1]:98-105,
January/February.
Lewontin,
Richard (1978),
“Adaptation,”
Scientific
American,
239[3]:212-218,220,
222,228,230,
September.
Pfeiffer, John
(1964), The
Cell (New
York:
Time,Inc.).
Ricci, Paul
(1986),
Fundamentals of
Critical
Thinking (Lexington,
MA: Ginn Press).
Sagan, Carl
(1974), “Life on
Earth,”
Encyclopaedia
Britannica,
Volume 10.
Science Digest
(1981),
89[1]:124,
January/February.
Simpson, George
Gaylord (1949),
The Meaning
of Life (New
Haven,
CT: Yale
University
Press).
Thaxton, Charles
B., Walter L.
Bradley, and
Roger L. Olsen
(1984), The
Mystery of
Life’s Origin
(New
York:
Philosophical
Library).
The Case for The Existence of God [Part III]
by Wayne Jackson, M.A. |
|
An examination
into the
existence of
morality and
ethics provides
yet another link
in the chain of
logical thought
that establishes
the case for the
existence of
God. The
evidence often
is discussed by
means of what is
referred to as
the
anthropological,
or moral,
argument for
God’s existence.
Morality is the
character of
being in accord
with the
principles or
standards of
right conduct.
Ethics generally
is viewed as the
system or code
by which
attitudes and
actions are
determined to be
either right or
wrong. Ethics
sometimes is
defined as the
justification of
criteria by
which one human
life can be
judged to be
better or worse
than another
(see Henry,
1973, p. 220).
Morality and
ethics, then,
assert that
there exists a
differentiation
between right
and wrong, and
between good and
evil. Moreover,
by implication,
there must be an
appeal to some
ultimate
standard by
which these
character traits
can be
distinguished.
The purpose of
morality and
ethics is
inseparably
connected with
the purpose of
life itself.
If there is no
purpose in the
Universe, as
Simpson and
others have
asserted, then
actually there
is no purpose to
morality or
ethics. But the
concept of a
purposeless
morality, or a
purposeless
ethic, does not
make sense, and
so men have
sought to read
some meaning, as
far-fetched as
it may be, into
the natural
human
inclination to
recognize the
need for
morality. Let us
give brief
attention to
several of the
theories that
propose to
explain the
function of
human ethics.
Hedonism
Hedonism is the
philosophy which
argues that the
aim of moral
conduct is the
attainment of
the greatest
possible
pleasure with
the greatest
possible
avoidance of
pain. That is to
say, the single
moral criterion
is the
preponderance of
pleasure over
pain. A phase of
hedonism, known
as psychological
hedonism,
contends that
one can act
only in this
manner. But if
that is the
case, how could
one’s actions be
considered as
“moral” in such
circumstances? A
man hardly can
be viewed as
moral for doing
that which he
cannot help
doing.
Hedonism,
however, is
woefully
inconsistent,
and its
advocates
rarely, if ever,
will stay with
its logical
conclusions.
What if one, in
the pursuit of
pleasure and the
avoidance of
pain, must
inflict pain
upon others in
order to achieve
the goal? In
other words,
what if one must
act immorally
in order to
practice his
“morality”? What
is there about
hedonism that
would motivate a
person to forego
his own pleasure
in the interest
of others?
Absolutely
nothing!
Renowned British
agnostic
Bertrand Russell
frustratingly
wrote:
We feel that the
man who brings
widespread
happiness at the
expense of
misery to
himself is a
better man than
the man who
brings
unhappiness to
others and
happiness to
himself. I do
not know of any
rational ground
for this view,
or, perhaps, for
the somewhat
more rational
view that
whatever the
majority desires
[called
utilitarian
hedonism—WJ]
is preferable to
what the
minority
desires. These
are truly
ethical problems
but I do not
know of any way
in which they
can be solved
except by
politics or war.
All that I can
find to say on
this subject is
that an
ethical opinion
can only be
defended by an
ethical axiom,
but, if the
axiom is not
accepted, there
is no way of
reaching a
rational
conclusion
(1969, 3:29,
emp. added).
But what if a
person is simply
an egotistical
hedonist and
thus announces,
“I care not at
all for others;
I intend to live
my life solely
for my own
pleasure with no
consideration
for others, save
when such is in
my own
interest.” But
someone
doubtlessly
would be tempted
to respond,
“That is so
selfish.” So,
what is wrong
with selfishness
if it brings
pleasure to the
committed
hedonist? Some
are willing to
actually go to
that extreme.
Atheistic
philosopher Ayn
Rand even
authored a book
titled The
Virtue of
Selfishness—A
New Concept of
Egoism,
defending the
concept of
hedonistic
selfishness. Yet
who would want
to live in such
a society?
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism,
advocated by
Jeremy Bentham,
J.S. Mill, and
others, is built
upon the
foundation of
hedonism, and
argues that
“good” is that
which gives
pleasure to the
greatest number
of people.
Again, however,
the theory is
seriously flawed
for several
reasons. First,
it cannot answer
the vital query:
If pleasure to
the greatest
number of people
prevents a man
from achieving
his own personal
pleasure, what
is there to
motivate him
toward the
pleasure of the
many? Second,
utilitarianism
provides no
guideline to
determine what
the “pleasure”
(genuine
happiness) of
the many
actually is.
Third, it is the
philosophy that
stands behind,
and is perfectly
consistent with,
numerous
atrocities
perpetrated in
the alleged
interest of
humanity. When
Hitler
slaughtered
countless
millions, and
bred people like
animals in
behalf of
evolving his
master race, he
felt he was
operating in the
genuine interest
of mankind as a
whole. The
principle is: If
some have to
suffer in order
for the ultimate
good to be
accomplished, so
what? Of course,
the leaders of
such movements
always are
willing to step
forward with
their definition
of what that
“ultimate good”
is!
Finally,
however, this
idea cannot
provide any
rational reason
as to why it
would be “wrong”
to ignore what
is in the
interest of the
many and,
instead, simply
pursue one’s
personal
pleasure. There
is an amazing
commentary on
this point in an
interesting
book, My
Father Bertrand
Russell,
written by
Russell’s
daughter,
Katherine Tait.
Mrs. Tait was
born in
London in 1923,
and was educated
at her parents’
innovative
school, Beacon
Hill,
which was
dedicated to the
promotion of
atheistic
humanism. In her
fascinating
volume, Mrs.
Tait explained
what it was like
being the famous
philosopher’s
only daughter.
For example,
Bertrand Russell
believed that a
parent must
teach his child
“with its very
first breath
that it has
entered into a
moral world” (Tait,
1975, p. 59).
Yet, as with all
atheists and
agnostics, he
had a most
difficult time
explaining why,
if man is merely
the product of
natural forces,
children should
be taught
morality. Tait
recalled that as
a child she
might say, in
connection with
some moral
responsibility,
“I don’t want
to! Why should
I?” A
conventional
parent, she
observed, might
reply, “Because
I say so...,
your father says
so..., God says
so....” Russell,
however, would
say to his
children:
“Because more
people will be
happy if you do
than if you
don’t.” “So
what,” she would
respond, “I
don’t care about
other people.”
But her father
would declare,
“You should!” In
her naive
innocence, young
Katherine would
inquire, “But
why?”—a question
to which the
redundant
rejoinder would
be, “Because
more people will
be happy if you
do than if you
don’t.” And,
Tait noted, “We
felt the heavy
pressure of his
rectitude and
obeyed, but the
reason was not
convincing—neither
to us nor to
him” (Tait,
1975, pp.
184-185).
Indeed, such
specious
reasoning will
convince no one
who thinks
beyond the
superficial
level.
MORALS/ETHICS
AND THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD
The truth of the
matter is that
only the
theocentric
approach to
morality can
explain the
purpose of life,
and therefore
provide adequate
motivation for a
genuinely
ethical approach
to life. Though
proof of God’s
existence is
abundantly
evident in the
beautifully
designed
Universe, His
character is
made known only
in His verbal
communications
(available to us
in the biblical
documents).
Thus, the Bible
declares that
God is eternal
(Psalm 90:2; 1
Timothy
1:17),
and that He is
morally perfect.
Not only is God
holy (Isaiah
6:3; Revelation
4:8), just and
righteous (Psalm
89:14), and good
(Psalms 100:6;
106:1), but in
the ultimate
sense, only God
is good (Mark
10:18). Since
the God of the
Bible is perfect
(Matthew
5:48),
it is to be
expected that
all that
proceeds from
Him is initially
good.
Accordingly,
that which He
created was good
(Genesis
1:31),
and all that He
does, commands,
and approves is
likewise good
(Psalm
119:39,68).
The “good,”
therefore, is
what God is;
what He has
commanded
results from Who
He is, and thus
is likewise
good. In the Old
Testament, the
prophet Micah
declared of God:
“He showed thee,
O man, what is
good; and what
doth Jehovah
require of thee,
but to do
justly, and to
love kindness,
and walk humbly
with thy God”
(Micah 6:8).
Similarly, in
the New
Testament Peter
admonished: “As
he who called
you is holy, be
ye yourselves
also holy in all
manner of
living; because
it is written,
Ye shall be
holy: for I am
holy” (1 Peter
1:15).
Moral
sensitivity
(i.e., the
awareness that
right and wrong
do exist) has
been implanted
in the soul of
man by virtue of
his creation in
the image of the
God Who is
eternally good.
Though created
upright, man, as
a being of free
willpower, fell
from his lofty
estate.
Accordingly,
God, by means of
divine
revelation,
seeks to bring
man back into
harmony with
Himself—a
process that
entails both
religious and
moral
obligations.
Biblical
morality has
several thrusts:
(1) It is
designed to
develop within
man right
attitudes, or to
state it another
way, to instill
a divine level
of thinking; (2)
Too, it is
intended to help
humanity
translate
spiritual
attitudes into
actions that
will be helpful
to all others;
(3) Finally, the
desired result
is to guide man
back into accord
with the divine
ideal, thus
ensuring both
his present and
eternal
happiness—to the
glory of God.
Additionally, we
may note that
biblical
revelation
provides a
sufficient
motive for moral
conduct. Those
who have not
foolishly thrust
God from their
minds (Psalm
14:1)
acknowledge that
the creation
testifies of
Jehovah’s
existence
(Romans
1:20-21), and
that His orderly
Universe is
evidence of His
good and loving
nature (Acts
14:17;
James
1:17;
I John 4:8). The
love of God in
providing Christ
(John
3:16) for sinful
man, and the
love of Jesus in
offering Himself
to redeem us
(Revelation 1:5;
Philippians
2:5ff.), are
motive aplenty
for leading a
moral life. We
love, hence,
obey Him (John
14:15) because
He first loved
us (I John
4:10-11,19). The
Scriptures
provide both
purpose and
motive
for their
ethical base,
whereas unbelief
has neither.
OTHER CRITERIA
FOR ESTABLISHING
ETHICS
All theories
regarding
morality assume
some standard by
which moral
judgments are
made. Whether
that standard is
“pleasure,”
“majority
opinion,”
“survival,”
etc., these
theories all
have one thing
in common: they
assume some sort
of ethical
“yardstick” by
which conduct is
measured. I now
want to give
brief attention
to several of
these proposed
standards to see
how they fare in
the light of
logical
scrutiny.
Nihilism
Nihilism springs
from the
atheistic notion
that since there
is no God, there
can be no
rational
justification
for ethical
norms. Advocates
of this
viewpoint have
contended that
nihilism is the
condition which
allows that
“everything is
permitted.”
Russian novelist
Fyodor
Dostoyevsky, in
his work, The
Brothers
Karamazov
(1880), has one
of his
characters say
that if God is
dead, everything
is allowed!
French
existential
philosopher Jean
Paul Sartre
wrote:
Everything is
indeed permitted
if God does not
exist, and man
is in
consequence
forlorn, for he
cannot find
anything to
depend upon
either within or
outside
himself.... Nor,
on the other
hand, if God
does not exist,
are we provided
with any values
or commands that
could legitimize
our behavior
(1961, p. 485).
Sartre contended
that whatever
one chooses to
do is right;
value is
attached to the
choice itself so
that “...we can
never choose
evil” (1966, p.
279). These men
are correct
about one thing.
If there is no
God, “anything
goes.”
The hypocrisy of
this dogma,
however, is
revealed by the
fact that the
propagators of
such an idea
really mean that
“everything is
permitted”
for them alone.
They do not mean
that the theft
of their
property, the
rape of their
wives, and the
slitting of
their
throats is
permitted!
Relativism
Moral relativism
rejects the idea
that there can
be universal
criteria for
determining
values. All
value systems
are thought to
be culturally
originated and
conditioned,
hence, all
cultural ethical
systems are
equally valid.
No moral system,
it is claimed,
can be said to
be either true
or false.
Again, though,
relativism falls
of its own
weaknesses, and
its proponents
will not stay
with it. What if
a particular
culture, e.g.,
that of the
“Bible Belt,”
believes that
ethics is
absolute? Would
the relativists
yield to that?
Perish the
thought! In some
cultures,
infanticide has
been (or is
being) deemed a
proper form of
population
control. Is that
then “right”?
What about
slavery, or the
abuse of women?
Where is the
relativist that
will declare
openly and
publicly the
morality of such
practices?
Situationism
Situationism
(commonly known
as “situation
ethics”) also
repudiates the
concept of any
absolute system
of values. For
our present
purpose, we may
divide
situationists
into two
classes—atheists
and theists.
The atheistic
position perhaps
is best
expressed in the
Humanist
Manifestos I and
II. Written
in 1933 and
1973,
respectively,
and signed by
such notables as
John Dewey,
Isaac Asimov,
Francis Crick,
Julian Huxley,
Antony Flew, and
others, they
contain the
following
statements:
We affirm that
moral values
derive their
source from
human
experience.
Ethics is
autonomous, and
situational,
needing no
theological or
ideological
sanction. Ethics
stems from human
needs and
interests. To
deny this
distorts the
whole basis of
life (Humanist
Manifestos I and
II, 1977, p.
17).
A more
contradictory
and absurd
position would
be difficult to
conceive. If one
argues that
ethics is
situational,
he is suggesting
that an act
cannot be judged
by an absolute
standard, and
that its
rightness or
wrongness is
dependent upon
the situation.
For example, it
would be wrong
to lie if that
falsehood was
hurtful to
others; however,
if the lie could
be helpful, it
is said, then it
would be right.
However, as
previously
indicated,
morality is
alleged to be
autonomous.
That word means
“self law,”
suggesting that
every man is his
own law. If that
is the case, how
could there ever
be a situation
in which a
person could do
wrong? Human
ethical autonomy
and situational
morality are
mutually
exclusive.
Then there is
theistic
situation
ethics, most
popularly
expounded by
Joseph Fletcher.
Fletcher (1966,
p. 55) claimed
that situation
ethics
represents a
sort of the
middle-of-the-road
position between
the extremes of
“antinomianism”
(i.e., no
ethical rules
exist) and
“legalism”
(i.e., moral
decisions may be
made by
appealing to a
rule book, e.g.,
the Bible). For
him, “love” was
the sole factor
in making moral
judgments. It
must be noted,
though, that his
“love” is purely
subjective—each
individual must
decide for
himself, in a
given context,
what the loving
course is.
The theory is
fraught with
insuperable
logical
difficulties.
First, it
affirms, “There
are absolutely
no absolutes.”
“Are you sure,”
we would ask?
“Absolutely!”
claims the
situationist.
Situation ethics
claims there are
no rules save
the rule to
love, yet by
their own rules
the
situationists
would define
love. Second,
God is removed
from the throne
as the moral
Sovereign of the
Universe, and
man is enthroned
in His place.
Man, then, with
his own
subjective sense
of “love,” makes
all final moral
judgments.
Situationism
thus ignores the
biblical view
that man is
lacking in
sufficient
wisdom to guide
his earthly
activities
(Jeremiah
10:23). Third,
Fletcher’s
situationism
assumes a sort
of omniscience
in the
application of
his “love”
principle. For
example, the
theory contends
that lying,
adultery,
murder, etc.,
could be “moral”
if done within
the context of
love. Yet, who
is able to
predict the
consequences of
such acts and
determine, in
advance, what is
the “loving”
thing to do? Let
us suggest the
following case.
A young woman,
jilted by her
lover, is in a
state of great
depression. A
married man,
with whom she
works, enters
into an
adulterous
relationship
with her in
order to
“comfort her.”
Fletcher would
argue that what
he did might
very well have
been a noble
deed, for the
man acted out of
concern for his
friend. What a
myopic
viewpoint! Let
us consider the
rest of the
story. The man’s
wife learned of
his adulterous
adventure, could
not cope with
the situation,
and eventually
committed
suicide. One of
the man’s sons,
disillusioned by
the immorality
of his father
and the death of
his mother,
began a life of
crime and
finally was
imprisoned for
the murder of
three people.
Another son
became a
drunkard and was
killed in an
auto accident
that also
claimed the
lives of a
mother and two
children. Now,
was that initial
act of adultery
the “loving”
thing to do?
Hardly.
Fourth,
situationism
assumes that
“love” is some
sort of
ambiguous,
no-rule essence
that is a
cure-all for
moral problems.
That is like
suggesting that
two football
teams play a
game in which
there will be no
rules except the
rule of
“fairness.”
Fairness
according to
whose judgment?
Team A? Team B?
The referees?
The spectators?
That is utter
nonsense! Fifth,
even when one
suggests that
“love” be the
criterion for
ethical
decisions, he
presupposes some
standard for
determining what
love is.
Situationists
contradict
themselves at
every turn.
Determinism
Another false
concept
regarding human
conduct is
determinism.
Determinism,
whether it be
social,
biological, or
theological, has
a necessary
logical
consequence—it
absolves man of
personal
responsibility
for his conduct.
Let us consider
several facts of
this general
thesis.
Behaviorism,
as developed by
John Watson
(1878-1958), a
psychologist at
Johns Hopkins
University,
argued that
personality,
hence conduct,
is the end
product of our
habit system.
Watson taught
that man is
merely an animal
resulting from
the evolutionary
process. B.F.
Skinner of
Harvard became
the leading
proponent of
behaviorism; he
believed that
man, as an
animal, is the
product of
environment, and
so even to speak
of human
responsibility
was nonsense in
his view. A
practical
example of these
theories was
seen in Clarence
Darrow’s defense
of murderers
Leopold and
Loeb, who killed
14-year-old
Bobby Franks as
an “experiment.”
Darrow argued
that they were
in no way
responsible for
their act since
brutal forces of
their past had
shaped their
destinies (see
Weinberg, 1957,
pp. 16-88).
Sociobiology
is a newer
notion that
attempts to
synthesize the
social sciences
with biology. It
sees man as a
mere machine,
somewhat
analogous to a
computer, which
has been
programmed by
its genetic
makeup. Human
behavior is the
result of
physical and
chemical forces,
and, as we do
not hold a
machine
accountable, so
neither should
we man.
We hold man
accountable
because man can
learn.
A few comments
concerning these
ideas are in
order. First, if
determinism is
true, there is
no such thing as
human
responsibility.
That's what you
are saying, not
the
determinists. This is a
necessary
corollary of the
theory.
No, it is just
showing that a
person has to be
necessarily
stupid and
distort
everything to
not see reality
in a quest to
defend
mythology. In spite
of this,
determinists
frequently
speak, write,
and act as
though human
accountability
existed.
Consistency is a
rare jewel among
them.
Dr.
Thompson, you
have got to be
an idiot.
We obvious do
take on
accountability
as we mature.
Taking-on
responsibility
is just another
environmental
influence.
Second, if
man is not
responsible for
his actions,
such terms as
“good” and
“evil” are
meaningless.
Third, if man is
not accountable,
no one should
ever be punished
for robbery,
rape, child
abuse, murder,
etc.
ONLY YOU -- Dr.
Thompson -- are
saying humans
could not be
held
accountable.
Do we
punish a machine
that maims or
kills a person?
Fourth, how can
we be expected
to be persuaded
by the doctrine
of determinism,
since the
determinists
were
“programmed” to
teach their
ideas, and thus
these ideas may
not be true at
all.
Determinism
means that
everything is
cause and
effect, the very
thing you state
time and time
again is proof
there must be a
God. Now
you are arguing
that choices
people make are
not cause
and effect.
Now all of a
sudden there is
no need for
antecedent
factors.
Determinists'
minds are not
programmed;
through cause
and effect
causes some
people to become
logical in their
thinking, while
others, like
you, prefer
illogic and
mythology. Fifth,
determinists
won’t abide by
their own
doctrine.
Not being able
to be held
accountable is
your doctrine,
Dr. Thompson. If I
recopied Edward
Wilson’s book,
Sociobiology:
The New
Synthesis,
and had it
published in
my name, I
quickly would
find out whether
Wilson thought I
was responsible
for the action
or if only my
genetic
background was!
This is all such
utter nonsense.
We punish people
to change
their behavior.
Punishment is
not about
determining who
or what is
actually
responsible.
It is another
cause that
brings about
another effect.
IS THERE
ULTIMATE MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY?
A crucial
question that
must be
addressed is
this: “Is there
any ultimate
consequence to
immorality?”
Atheists are
fond of saying
that one should
not be unethical
because of
social
sanctions, i.e.,
society’s
disapproval,
legal
punishment, etc.
The implication
is, unethical
conduct is only
“bad” because
you might get
caught! I once
asked an atheist
this question:
“Paul, the
apostle of
Christ, and
Adolf Hitler are
two well-known
historical
characters. Both
are dead. Now,
so far as they
are concerned,
does it really
make any
difference that
they lived their
lives in such
divergent
directions?” He
replied that it
did not! If that
is the case,
human existence
makes no sense
whatsoever. But
that is
infidelity’s
position, of
course.
CONCLUSION
In this article,
we have
discussed human
moral
obligations. The
fact that we
have considered
morality is
something unique
to our kind. No
two apes ever
sat down and
said, “Let’s
talk about
ethical
obligations
today.” That
ought to say
something about
our nature. In
their book,
Why Believe? God
Exists!,
Miethe and
Habermas have
observed:
At every turn in
the discussion
of moral values,
the naturalistic
position is
weighted down
with
difficulties. It
has the
appearance of a
drowning swimmer
trying to keep
its head above
water. If it
concedes
something on the
one hand, it is
condemned on the
other. But if it
fails to admit
the point, it
appears to be in
even more
trouble. It is
an
understatement
to say, at the
very least, that
naturalism is
not even close
to being the
best
explanation for
the existence of
our moral
conscience
(1993, p. 219,
emp. in orig.).
As I draw this
discussion to a
close, there are
some important
summary
observations
that should be
mentioned.
1.
Human moral
responsibility
is based upon
the fact that
God is our
Creator (Psalm
100:3), and that
we have been
made in His
spiritual image
(Genesis
1:26).
Just as a potter
has a right over
the clay he is
fashioning, so
our Maker has
the right to
obligate us
morally and
spiritually to
right living
(see Romans
9:21).
2.
Since morality
is grounded in
the unchanging
nature of God
(Malachi 3:6; 1
Peter
1:15),
it is
absolute—not
cultural, not
relative, not
situational.
3.
God’s will for
human behavior
is not a matter
of subjective
speculation that
every man
figures out for
himself; rather,
Jehovah has
spoken (Hebrews
1:1), and His
Mind is made
known in
objective,
biblical
revelation (1
Corinthians
2:11ff.; 2
Timothy
3:16-17).
4.
Though the Lord
possesses an
unchanging
nature, His
revelatory
process was
progressive and
adapted to man
as he developed
spiritually in
those times of
antiquity.
Accordingly, in
ages of the past
Jehovah
tolerated, and
even regulated,
certain acts
that are not
permissible in
the Christian
era. This, of
course, does not
mean that God
vacillates in
His morality; it
simply means
that He dealt
with man as he
was in that
infantile state
(Matthew 19:8;
Acts
14:16;
17:30-31).
Today, the New
Testament stands
as the Lord’s
final and
ultimate
standard of
morality.
5.
Though the New
Testament is the
“law of Christ”
(Romans 8:2;
Galatians 6:2),
it is not a
“legal” system
in that each
aspect of human
conduct is
prescribed with
a “thou shalt”
or “thou shalt
not.” Yes, there
are both
positive and
negative
commands in the
New Testament,
but they do not
spell out every
specific
activity. The
inspired
document
contains many
rich principles
that challenge
us to develop a
greater sense of
spiritual
maturity and to
soar to heights
that are
God-honoring.
6.
One must
recognize also
that New
Testament ethics
does not deal
merely with
actions, but
addresses
motives as well.
For instance,
what if one
accidentally
runs down with
his automobile
(and thereby
kills) a
careless
pedestrian? He
is not held
accountable
before God, for
his act was
unintentional.
On the other
hand, one can be
guilty (in
disposition) of
both adultery
and murder (cf.
Matthew
5:28;
1 John
3:15).
7.
It is imperative
that men
recognize that
ethical activity
(i.e., right
relations with
one’s fellows)
is not the
totality of a
person’s
obligation
before God. The
centurion
Cornelius
certainly
learned this
truth (Acts 10).
There are
spiritual
responsibilities
that the Lord
has prescribed
as a test of
true faith, and
yet men
frequently
ignore such
divine
obligations.
8.
Finally, even
though the
Almighty has
called His human
creation to a
high moral
level, we must
recognize that
He is aware that
we are but
frail, dusty
flesh (Psalms
78:39; 103:14).
And so His
marvelous grace
has been
revealed in the
unspeakably
wonderful gift
of His Son.
Those who in
loving faith
submit to Him
(Hebrews 5:8-9)
can know the
pardon of their
moral blunders
(Acts
22:16),
and are
challenged to
live righteous
and godly lives
in this present
world (Titus
2:11-14).
REFERENCES
Darwin, Francis
(1889), Life
and Letters of
Charles Darwin
(London:
Appleton).
Fletcher, Joseph
(1966),
Situation
Ethics: The New
Morality, (Philadelphia,
PA: Westminster
Press).
Geisler, Norman
L. and Winfried
Corduan (1988),
Philosophy of
Religion (Grand
Rapids,
MI: Baker).
Henry, Carl F.H.
(1973),
Baker’s
Dictionary of
Christian Ethics
(Grand
Rapids,
MI: Baker).
Humanist
Manifestos I and
II
(1977), (Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus).
Miethe, Terry L.
and Gary R.
Habermas (1993),
Why Believe?
God Exists!
(Joplin,
MO: College
Press).
Russell,
Bertrand (1969),
Autobiography
(New
York:
Simon &
Schuster).
Sartre, Jean
Paul, (1961),
“Existentialism
and Humanism,”
French
Philosophers
from Descartes
to Sartre,
ed. Leonard M.
Marsak (New
York:
Meridian).
Sartre, Jean
Paul (1966),
“Existentialism,”
Reprinted in
A Casebook on
Existentialism,
ed. William V.
Spanos (New
York:
Thomas Y.
Crowell).
Simpson, George
Gaylord (1951),
The Meaning
of Evolution
(New
York:
Mentor).
Tait, Katherine
(1975), My
Father Bertrand
Russell (New
York:
Harcourt, Brace,
& Jovanovich).
Weinberg, Arthur
(1957),
Attorney for the
Damned (New
York:
Simon &
Schuster).
Copyright © 1995
Apologetics
Press, Inc. All
rights reserved.
This document
may be copied,
on the condition
that it will not
be republished
in print unless
otherwise stated
below, and will
not be used for
any commercial
purpose, as long
as the following
stipulations are
observed: (1)
Apologetics
Press must be
designated as
the original
publisher; (2)
the specific
Apologetics
Press Web site
URL must be
noted; (3)
any references,
footnotes, or
endnotes that
accompany the
article must be
included with
any written
reproduction of
the article; (4)
textual
alterations of
any kind are
strictly
forbidden; (5)
Some
illustrations
(e.g.,
photographs,
charts,
graphics, etc.)
are not the
intellectual
property of
Apologetics
Press and as
such cannot be
reproduced from
our site without
consent from the
person or
organization
that maintains
those
intellectual
rights; (6)
serialization of
written material
(e.g., running
an article in
several parts)
is permitted, as
long as the
whole of the
material is made
available,
without editing,
in a reasonable
length of time;
(7)
articles, in
whole or in
part, may not be
offered for sale
or included in
items offered
for sale; and (8)
articles may be
reproduced in
electronic form
for posting on
Web sites
pending they are
not edited or
altered from
their original
written content
and that credit
is given to
Apologetics
Press, including
the web location
from which the
articles were
taken. Further,
documents may
not be copied
without source
statements
(title, author,
journal title),
and the address
of the publisher
and owner of
rights, as
listed below.
For catalog,
samples, or
further
information,
contact:
Apologetics
Press
230 Landmark
Drive
Montgomery,
Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334)
272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
|