The Existence of God - Part 2

There is a very prevalent assumption, on the part of many people, that if biological evolution is proven scientifically to be true, then we can rule out the existence of God. This is illogical.

I am not convinced that science actually has proven macro-evolution to be true, but let us assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a fact. (Macro-evolution means one kind of animal turning into a completely different kind of animal - like a whale into a cow, or a reptile into a bird, which has never happened. Micro-evolution means one kind of animal changing within the boundaries of its existing genetic potential, like all the breeds of dogs coming originally from wolves, or a strain of a disease becoming resistant to certain drugs, which obviously does happen).

So if we assume that macro-evolution is true, we still have a big problem. Where did all the original stuff come from in the first place? Where did the matter and energy that everything evolved out of, come from? Of course, no one can answer that, any more than we can answer the question of where God came from. Traditionally, Christians believe that God is eternal. He necessarily exists. He is not derived from anything. This is why Yahweh revealed Himself to Moses as "I am". He was revealing the fact that He is self-existent.

The point that I want to make is that no matter what science proves or does not prove, if we ask enough of the right kinds of questions we will eventually run out of answers because we will eventually ask questions that are not testable scientifically. Everyone, no matter how passionately they proclaim themselves to be secular-humanists, has faith in something, because everyone believes in something that they can't prove.

If you are a theist, you believe that God exists even though you can't prove it and don't really know what it means that He is self-existent. He just is. If you are an atheist, you believe that matter and energy are self-existent just because they are.

So we Christians must not fall for it when atheists proclaim that they are the only ones capable of doing real science, because they are (in their own minds) free from faith-based assumptions that color the way they view the scientific evidence. They are just as influenced by their faith-based presuppositions as everyone else. It is not bad to have presuppositions - they are unavoidable - it is bad when we operate without being aware of what our presuppositions are, because it breeds arrogance and blindness.

The Existence of God - Part 1

Well, it's been way too long. But we're moved now, and I ought to have time to blog again. I think I will blog for a while about atheism, and why I am not an atheist. There are a number of possible routes one can take in making a case for the existence of God. Today I'm going to talk about what I call the "moral argument".

In summary, the moral argument for the existence of God is that if God does not exist, the concept of morality is meaningless. Humans universally possess a sense of right and wrong (our conscience). This is true in every culture, and while there may be slight variations in the specific behaviors that are considered good or bad, there is remarkable uniformity across all cultures and times in terms of what is considered moral. Therefore, I argue that the presence of a conscience is very difficult, if not impossible, to explain apart from the existence of God. Therefore it is much more likely that God exists, than that He does not exist.

In order to flesh this out a little bit, I would like to contrast my view with the most common opposing view that exists in our society today - secular humanism. Secular humanism says that there is no God, and therefore, humanity is its own authority. So we get to make up the rules as we go. According to secular humanism, we are the product of evolution, which progresses by means of natural selection. Natural selection is the process of weeding out creatures that are less well adapted to their environment, so that the only creatures that get to pass on their genetic code are the ones that can change and survive. In this paradigm, creatures are rewarded (with survival) for preying upon weaker, slower, dumber creatures. In this system, there can be no place for conscience. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If "progress" (this concept must be arbitrarily defined for an atheist - perhaps "increasing social and biological complexity" would be the best definition?) is achieved through doing whatever it takes to survive, then all notions of morality should be considered a hindrance to progress rather than a sign of progress.

To put this in concrete terms - If it helps my survival to shoot you and take your money, atheistic natural selection has absolutely no basis for declaring my actions "wrong". The consistent application of evolutionary philosophy will lead to a society where "might makes right". Adolf Hitler is a prime example of someone who believed in evolution, understood the philosophical implications, and applied his beliefs in real life. The results were horrific, and no one, least of all the secular humanists of our day, wants to identify themselves with that kind of thing.

What we have today in Western society is a lot of secular humanists living contradictory lives. On the one hand, they talk about human rights all the time, and they show genuine concern for poverty and stopping the genocide in Darfur, and all that, while at the same time denying the ultimate philosophical underpinnings of those values. How do we account for atheists who share so many of our moral values? I believe this is the result of two things: social upbringing (our society is loosely based on Judeo-Christian values) and the fact that people, whether they believe in God or not, are nevertheless created in His image, and therefore possess a conscience

If God does not exist there is no such thing as morality. There is so much more to say about this. But I am out of time, so I'll continue this discussion in further posts.