Month: July 2017

We have finished addressing the questions put to us by internationals at AIF. Today’s blog resumes the discussion from February, but fortunately, the last several blogs have picked up the theme we left off with. To review: We were discussing what it means to be created in the image of God, and we have talked about things like our ability to detect moral right and wrong, our sense of a spiritual reality, and our desire for purpose. So to continue …

 We have a proverb in English:

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

The idea is that different people see beauty in different things. You’ve certainly experienced this. Your friend likes modern art, but you think it is a jumble. One man likes the look of a suit, while another prefers the look of blue jeans. Despite your experience with differing tastes, however, I want to push back a little against the proverb.

On one level, the proverb works, but on another level, it is problematic, for the more I think about beauty, the more I have to confess that it isn’t random. If beauty had no connection to anything outside a person, then we ought to expect much more disagreement about it than we do. Now we do find disagreement about many things, but we also find many phenomena that virtually everyone says are beautiful. I have heard people argue about the attractiveness of a painting or a building or a lady, but we must admit that not all paintings, buildings and ladies engender the same amount of disagreement. Some are more generally acknowledged to be lovely, some more generally acknowledged to be ugly, and some have the populace split. Almost everyone would have to confess that Banff, Alberta is far prettier than Gary, Indiana, including (likely) the mayor of Gary, Indiana. I have yet to hear someone say that the stars are ugly, and people all around the globe believe the Grand Canyon to be fabulous, and almost every human who has ever lived will tell you that a sunset is splendid. Why? If beauty is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, why are the beholders sometimes so overwhelmingly in agreement? It seems as if two things are true. First, not all things have the same intrinsic beauty. Second, we humans are wired to appreciate beauty, and, in some cases, the wiring brings consensus, as if beauty were more like an objective reality than anything else.

So. To summarize. Humans have the ability to sense beauty, and beauty seems to be real. I do not wish to argue whether it is our wiring or the sunset that defines beauty; for regardless of which one you give preeminence to, the other must still be present or we enjoy no beauty. It’s like any other sensor. A light sensor requires internal wiring and light in order to sense light. A movement sensor requires internal wiring and movement in order to sense movement. A camera requires an internal apparatus and a real object in order to take a picture. So it is with beauty. The human race has the software for processing beauty, and it seems as if beauty really does exist.

This ability we humans have is part of the package that comes with being made in the image of God. We have a moral sense. We have a spiritual sense. We have an aesthetic sense. All of these senses are designed to process different types of information. We are more than a body, more than a brain. There’s something else inside us.

This is a continuation of a discussion that addresses a question from one of our internationals.

Q: Proof that God exists?

A: Let’s pretend. Let’s say, you and your roommate wake up in the middle of the night throwing up in the toilet. Let’s also say that you both ate some under-cooked pork at a dinner party earlier that day. You conclude that you both have food poisoning. Is that a fair conclusion?

Now, let’s say a friend stops by in the morning, and you tell him your woes. But he disagrees with your assessment. He says you don’t both have food poisoning. He says that you have contracted a bacterial infection from not washing your hands properly and that your roommate is exhibiting an allergic reaction to the sage, which was in the pork. Let’s say that you don’t recall washing your hands before eating last night, and — it’s true — there was sage in the pork.

We now have competing theories for why you and your roommate are sick. Both theories are plausible and both accurately fit the known facts. Whose theory do you favor and why?

Most people will say that, given what we know, the food poisoning theory is the better theory. The reason is not that the other theory can’t work. It’s just that the food poisoning theory is simpler. It explains the same phenomena that your friend’s theory explains without as many contingencies. All other things being equal, we prefer simple explanations over complex ones. This idea is not a piece of evidence per se. Instead it is a principle for evaluating theories, and this principle has a name — Ockham’s Razor.

William of Ockham was a medieval priest and philosopher who often spoke of the necessity of economy in a theory. His principle is this: “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words, when we have competing theories, we should select the one with fewer assumptions, unless we have reason to select a different one. Most people do this naturally. We call it common sense.

I am bringing up Ockham’s Razor in a discussion about the existence of God because atheists generally do. People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have used Ockham’s Razor as a principle to favor atheism. Their argument goes something like this.

1. Science can explain life through purely material explanations.
2. Christians do not generally deny science (except perhaps for evolution). Instead they posit a God behind the science. For example, science offers explanations for how rain works or how galaxies formed. Christians, however, believe that God brings the rain and that God formed the galaxies, but in believing this, they frequently accept much of the science. In other words, the Christian theory suggests an extra step or an assumption that we don’t need to explain these phenomena.
3. Therefore, using Ockham’s Razor, we should prefer the atheist explanation of life.

If you read atheist arguments long enough, sooner or later you will hear some form of Ockham’s Razor.

So then. How can we address this line of thinking?

A.  First, we need to see Ockham’s Razor for what it is. It is not evidence but a principle for evaluating evidence. Consequently, it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. It may be that you didn’t wash your hands, and your roommate is allergic to sage. Sometimes life is complex.

B.  Ockham’s Razor says that we should not posit entities without necessity. Ockham understood that simple isn’t always best. When you suggest an extra entity, you should have a reason for it.

C.  Christians would strongly disagree with #1 above, that science can explain life through purely material explanations. We do not believe that materialistic science can adequately provide a foundation for moral absolutes, purpose, human value, reason, the beginning of the universe, design, beauty, this inward sense of something beyond us, and more. We see atheistic explanations as utterly inadequate. Therefore, when we posit God to explain these things, we are not doing so without necessity. Atheism just doesn’t work.

D.  Life seems to be more than just biology. To reduce it to biology seems rather narrow-minded. When we include things like moral absolutes, purpose, etc. in our description of life, all of a sudden, God seems to best fit Ockham’s Razor.

Let’s think this through.

Let’s take moral absolutes. Moral absolutes either exist or they don’t. If they don’t, then slavery is not wrong, Stalin was not wrong, and the person who cheated you out of a thousand dollars was not wrong. There is no wrong. If moral absolutes do exist, then they need a moral foundation. Materialism cannot give us a moral foundation. Thus, to be consistent, an atheist has one of two choices: he can say moral absolutes do not exist, or he can say that moral absolutes do exist and that they just are. Why is it right to be kind? It helps the species survive. Why is it right to help the species survive? It just is. If you ask long enough, you get to “It just is.” Some things are right because — well — they just are. Fair enough.

Let’s take human value. What makes humans more valuable then parrots? Well, we are more intelligent or have a sense of beauty or whatever. And what makes intelligence more valuable than a lack of intelligence? Well, intelligence allows creatures to accomplish more sophisticated things. And why is it more valuable to accomplish more sophisticated things? At some point, you end up with “It just is.”

Let’s take the beginning of the universe. If there is no God, then where did the universe come from? Some may say that the universe just is. Others posit some other cause, maybe a multiverse. And where did that cause come from? At some point you end up with “It just is.”

Let’s take purpose. Life has a purpose beyond mere survival or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then the atheist should be consistent and stop criticizing people who say it does. If life has no purpose, then neither does their criticism. If life has no purpose, then the atheist and the Christian are equally floating in the sea of meaninglessness. If, however, life does have a purpose, where did it come from? At some point, you end up with “It just is.”

We could continue this game, but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, the Christian has one thing that just is. God explains all these phenomena by Himself. The materialist, however, must have multiple realities that just are. Unless, of course, he wishes to deny those realities altogether. Kindness is just right or kindness doesn’t exist. We have no purpose or our purpose is whatever they say, and at some point, it just is. Humans have value. They just do. At some point something caused the universe to exist, and it just is.

Now let me ask you a question. Which of these ideas — theism or atheism — best fits Ockham’s Razor?

This blog is a continuation in a series dealing with questions internationals have asked at AIF. If you scroll down far enough to the blog titled “You Want Purpose,” you will find another discussion of this topic.

Q: Proof that God Exists?

A: I have been addressing this question for several blogs, and we have discussed topics like the beginning of the universe, the apparent design in the universe, morality, human rights, the existence of a religious desire in human nature, and the legitimacy of reason itself. Today, we will add another topic to that list: your desire for purpose.

Keep in mind that nothing I have said or will say is a proof in the strict sense. Neither theists nor atheists can prove their case, but everything I have said is more like a clue that seems to point us in a certain direction. Life itself smells as if there is a God. Today is no different.

You want purpose. You do. You do not want to live a meaningless life just so you can die. And if you are perceptive, you see that the quest for money and stuff is a meaningless life. You also see that the survival of the species cannot be a real purpose, for if materialism is true and if in the end our species survives, who cares? What is the purpose of our species? Just to survive?   That’s not a purpose, and you know it. There has to be some other purpose.

But just because you desire a deeper purpose doesn’t mean that earth has one. Maybe we are all atoms. Maybe our desire for meaning is an illusion. Maybe people invent purpose because they want it.

Maybe. But doesn’t it seem strange that atoms would care about meaning? If materialism is true, then you and I are nothing more than some carbon, some hydrogen, oxygen, a little magnesium, and so on. Why would such chemicals desire meaning? But if God exists, we have a purpose. And if we have a purpose, it makes sense that we should desire one.

The atheist may say that we invent purpose because we want it, but he has a harder time explaining why we want it.

Of course, when we deal with purpose, we must talk about events that seem senseless — the suffering of children, the death of a loved one, the rise to power of evil men. Why? If there is a purpose, why do these things happen?

I don’t know. I’m not God. But I should point out that if you believe there is a purpose, you can find comfort in the midst of these events.   You may not understand why, but you know there is a why. If, however, there is no purpose, then there is nothing particularly wrong with these events. If there is no purpose, then you have no purpose, the suffering child has no purpose, being good has no purpose, and being evil has no purpose. Purpose doesn’t exist. Everything is just an event. Torturing a child is just an event. Hitler simply was. The problem with this way of thinking is that even the atheist recognizes that we should not torture children. But if there is no purpose, he can’t explain why, except to say, “It’s just wrong. It just is.”

But why is it wrong? How is kindness different from torture in a meaningless world?   In the end, a consistent atheism has no ground to stand on to protest torture, evil, or other “meaningless” events. And in the end, atheism offers no comfort in the face of suffering.

Doesn’t it seem as if your desire for purpose points you to — well — purpose?