Last
week I put together a
list of twenty questions that, in my experience, atheists either ‘won’t or
can’t answer’ and invited coherent responses. I was not, in posting these,
saying that atheists have no answers to them, only that as yet in over forty
years of discussion with them I am yet to hear any good ones.
The post generated 2,400 page views and 52 comments in a week and ten people
attempted to take up the challenge by answering the questions.
Of
these Richard Carrier and Rosa Rubicondior were the most comprehensive and the
former also included extensive cross-references to other material by both himself
and other authors. Some opted to answer all twenty questions and others were
more selective but all seemed to think they had done a good job. I am grateful to
them for their time and effort.
Several
Christians also posted the twenty questions on their own blogs but as far as I
know only one, ‘A Christian Word’, posted some answers in his Responses to Rosa Rubicondior .
I
promised to post my own observations about the questions soon and start doing
so now with the first six.
However, let me first make some preliminary
comments.
First,
atheism and theism are mutually exclusive world views which both deserve
careful consideration. They cannot both be correct and yet each world view is
held by a large number of leading academics and scientists and large
proportions of the world’s population (there are 3.9 billion theists and 1.1
billion atheists). This alone should lead us to approach the question of which,
if either, is correct with a degree of humility and respect for those who hold
a contrary view.
Atheists
are materialists, believing that physical
matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling,
mind, and will, can be explained in terms of physical phenomena. They
accordingly believe that God and the supernatural do not exist and that there
is therefore no judgement and no afterlife. Both physical and biological
complexity (including both the universe and human beings themselves) are simply
the product of chance (random processes) and necessity (the working of physical
laws) over time.
By contrast theists (including
Christians, Muslims and Jews) believe that the universe was created by an
all-powerful, all knowing, rational, omnipresent, benevolent, and personal God
who is both transcendent (separate from it) and immanent (intimately involved
with it). They believe that human beings were made for relationship with God,
that death leads on to judgement by God and that there are two destinations for
human beings, either enjoying God’s company in paradise/heaven or separated
from him forever in Hell. So, theists believe that, in addition to chance and necessity, the universe was also the
result of intelligent design.
Second,
many atheists and theists hold their beliefs with considerable tenacity. Just
as there are theists who reject out of hand observations, theories and
worldviews which challenge their theistic convictions, so many atheists have an
a priori commitment to atheism which leads them to seek exclusively materialistic
explanations (and reject wholesale supernatural explanations) for all phenomena
from religious experience to the origin of the universe and biological
complexity.
As
Richard Lewontin, a world famous geneticist at Harvard, has said:
‘ We take the
side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because
we have a prior commitment...to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of
the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set
of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive,
no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is
absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.'
In
other words many atheists assume the truth of the atheistic world view as a
non-negotiable starting point and are accordingly strongly resistant to
questioning it.
My
question, however, is whether the atheistic world view has the explanatory
power of the theistic one for the available evidence. I don’t believe that it
does and have posed these twenty questions to make that case.
Third, I challenge atheists (and agnostics) reading this blog not to adopt the view, as a matter of faith, that the atheistic world view
is some sort of neutral default position and that the burden of proof lies
solely with theists to prove their case. Let’s not have any of the usual
allegations of ‘meaningless questions’, ‘God of the gaps’, ‘appeals to
authority’ or the mockery, ridicule and ‘face-palming’ that often accompanies
any attempt by theists to advance their case.
Start instead with the admission
that theism is a plausible, internally consistent world view held by
intelligent people that might indeed be true, and ask yourselves which of
atheism and theism is the best fit for the phenomena raised by the twenty
questions. I am not claiming that any of these answers constitutes a knock-down
proof of theism or rebuttal of atheism, just that theism explains these
phenomena better than atheism does. So let’s hear respectful sound argument (devoid
of patronising putdowns and ad hominem attacks) as to why you think that is not
actually the case.
Fourth,
I am aware that each of these twenty questions has occupied minds far finer
than mine over many centuries and that different people have come to different
conclusions. I am aware that books have been written about each one, but also
that few of us has the time to examine in detail all the arguments advanced by
each side in the debate. I myself am a generalist not a specialist. I am
neither a philosopher nor a research scientist but simply a doctor. Therefore, in
the interests of dialogue and in making these arguments more accessible I have
tried to keep my replies brief and to keep cross-referencing to a minimum.
My
aim is that this will encourage good debate and discussion and I remain very
open to expanding individual answers in subsequent blogs as and when responses
call for a more detailed case to be made on any particular question. Can I
suggest in turn that readers keep responses brief and if necessary link to more
detailed material elsewhere. But even better make the case yourself.
Fifth
and finally, whilst it is absorbing, even fun, to discuss questions of this
kind, let’s bear in mind that the position we take on them may have
far-reaching consequences. If God does indeed exist, and if there is a
judgement and a heaven and hell, then to reject a theistic view and to persuade
others to follow is a very serious matter indeed. On the other hand, if atheism
is true, then well over half the world’s population has been, at least
seriously, and perhaps, even dangerously, misled. Just as many atheists are
committed to defending their convictions because they believe that theism is a damaging
deception, so my own commitment to defending Christian theism is motivated by a
desire that many who do not currently hold to it will change their minds and
come to share my belief in Jesus Christ as God incarnate, the creator and
sustainer of the universe, visiting our planet in human form with all that that
involves.
Many
of my replies however are advanced in defence of theism generally, rather than
in Christian theism specifically. And I have taken care not to assume belief in
the Bible, or any other religious text, as infallible, whilst still drawing on
it to help answer one or two question as a historical record.
And so to the twenty questions: Why is it that I believe they point more
to theism than atheism as the correct world view? Here are my answers to the first six.
1. What
caused the universe to exist?
Astronomers currently estimate the age of the universe to be 13.7
± 0.13 billion years. This is based both on observation of the oldest stars and
by measuring its rate of expansion and extrapolating back to the Big Bang.
Whilst this consensus may be challenged in the future virtually all scientists
now accept that the universe did have a beginning.
Given that all known things which began to exist have a cause it
seems reasonable to assume that the universe itself had a cause. But unless we
are to believe that the universe somehow pulled itself up by its own
bootstraps, this cause must have been extrinsic to the universe (space-time
continuum) itself.
Anything extrinsic to the universe must be both immaterial,
beyond space and time and must have unfathomable power and intelligence.
Moreover, it must be personal, as it made the decision to bring the universe
into existence, and decisions only come from minds.
It is therefore not unreasonable to believe in
the existence of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent,
personal Creator of the universe.
2. What
explains the fine tuning of the universe?
For the universe to exist as it does and
allow intelligent life to exist, it requires an astonishing series of
‘coincidences’ to have occurred. Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, has formulated
the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of six dimensionless constants (N,
Epsilon, Omega, Lambda, Q & D) including the ratio of the strength of
electromagnetism to that of gravity, the strength of the force binding nucleons
into nuclei and the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large
galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass.
According to Rees, these numbers govern the shape, size and
texture of the universe and would have been defined during the Big Bang. His
conclusion, based on the scientific evidence available, is that these six
numbers appear to be unerringly tuned for the emergence of life. That is to
say, if any one of them were much different, we simply could not exist.
In the
closing chapters of his book, ‘Just Six Numbers’, Rees concedes that science cannot explain this fine-tuning. The reasons for
it lie beyond anything within our universe and therefore beyond anything we can
ever measure.
There are three possible explanations for it, namely, chance,
physical necessity and design. Chance is overwhelmingly improbable. Physical
necessity also seems to be ruled out on the basis that contemporary physics has
indicated that these constants exist independently of each other and the laws
of nature. It seems therefore not impossible that intelligent design might
account for them.
Alternative theories, such as Stephen Hawking’s multiverse
theory, are not provable and with a complexity that runs wildly contrary to
Occam’s razor’s demand for succinctness and simplicity.
3. Why is
the universe rational?
I don’t mean by this that the universe thinks
but that it is rationally intelligible. The universe operates according to
physical laws such as Boyle’s law, Newton’s laws of motion and the law of the
conservation of energy. But these are not merely regularities in nature. These
regularities are also mathematically precise, universal and ‘tied together’.
Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate’.
He said, ‘I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist…
We see the universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws…’. He
clearly believed in a transcendent source of the rationality of the world that
he variously called ‘superior mind’, illimitable superior spirit’, ‘superior
reasoning force’ and ‘mysterious force that moves the constellations’.
He said, ‘Everyone who is seriously engaged in
the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the
existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of
which we with our modest powers must feel humble’.
Does the intrinsic rationality of the universe
prove the existence of God? No. But it is fully consistent with theism and
rather difficult for atheism with its limited twin forces of chance and
necessity to explain.
4. How
did DNA and amino acids arise?
Cell metabolism and reproduction rely on cooperation between
nucleic acids and proteins. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules are long
chains made up from a set of four different nucleotides (A, G, C, T) linked linearly
which provide an information store instructing cells how to build their own
characteristic sets of proteins. Proteins (also enzymes) are large molecules
made up of many amino acids, chosen from a basic set of 20 and also linked
together in linear fashion. For proteins to function they need to fold into
specific 3-dimensional shapes, which are determined by the order in which the
amino acids are linked.
The interdependence of DNA and proteins is remarkable. The coded
information in the genomic DNA sequence is useless without the protein-based
translation machinery to transform it into cell components. And yet the
instructions for production of this translation machinery are themselves coded
on the genomic DNA. This presents a chicken and egg paradox. Which came first?
The DNA information is needed to build the protein machinery but only the
specific protein machinery can read the instructions. Thus far the mechanism by
which this might have happened has proved insoluble, but it shouts ‘design’.
Far more fundamental is the problem of the origin of amino
acids. Elaborate solutions including ‘meteorite deliveries’ and ‘prebiotic
soups’ are highly speculative when the most sophisticated laboratories are unable
to produce human life’s 20 amino acids let alone the smallest functional
enzymes. In a prebiotic soup environment the total probability of a functional
150 unit protein forming would be 1 in 10 to the 164th – an
impossibly small chance given that the chance of finding one particular atom in
the whole observable universe would be only 1 in 10 to the 80th.
5. Where
did the genetic code come from?
The genetic code enables three letter words
made up from the four nucleotide letters in DNA (A, G, C, T) to be matched to
one or more of the 20 different amino acids used as building blocks of
proteins. If these letters are assembled in the wrong order, then like random
arrangements of the letters of the alphabet, they do not form meaningful
sentences.
But both human language and secret codes
involve intricate mapping of one set of symbols onto another that can only be
achieved with the involvement of the human mind. Language involves the mapping
of words to sounds and secret codes the mapping of one set of letters to
another.
How then did the sophisticated genetic code
arise? Again we have only three possibilities: chance, necessity or design. The
genetic code, like language, gives the appearance of being the product of an
intelligent mind.
Richard Dawkins has tried to explain how proteins might be
assembled using the genetic code by using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys
banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a
Shakespearean sonnet.
The former atheist Antony Flew recounts hearing Israeli
scientist Gerald Schroeder referring to an experiment conducted by the British
National Council of Arts in which a computer was placed in a cage with six
monkeys. After a month of hammering they produced 50 typed pages – but not a
single English word. This is because the probability of getting even a one
letter word (I or A with a space on either side) is one in 27,000.
The chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet (‘Shall I compare
thee to a summer’s day’ has 488 letters) is one in 10 to the 690th.
Similarly the chance of randomly assembling nucleotides coding for amino acid
sequences forming functional proteins is vanishingly small.
6. How do
irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
Metabolic processes require complex chains of linked enzymes in
order to work properly. The enzyme chains that convert light into electrical
signals in the retina and those that synthesise blood clotting factors are two
such examples. But these chains have been likened to mousetraps, which only
work if all of their components (eg. base, spring, bait holder, trap etc) are
all present and properly assembled. They are ‘irreducibly complex’ in that if
we remove any one component the device will not work. How then can such systems
evolve in a stepwise fashion if enzyme chains lacking any one component will
not actually work and therefore confer no survival advantage on which natural
selection can operate?
This is a very difficult question for atheists.
Let’s consider the simplest self-replicating organisms as
another example. The operation of
neo-Darwinian natural selection depends on the prior existence of entities
capable of self-replication. Before the arrival of organisms capable of
reproduction this process could not operate.
Viruses and the smallest living bacteria are not in themselves
capable of reproducing by themselves but require enzymes only found in more
complex organisms to do so.
The smallest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium,
has a genome of 582,970 base pairs corresponding to about 480 proteins. But its
complex membranes enclose a system of organelles including ribosomes,
carboxysomes and plasmids along with this information loaded DNA. The organised
complexity of these most simple of organisms throws into relief the immensity
of the task facing naturalistic explanations of how life originated.
Summary – the first six
questions
These initial six questions about the origin and complexity of
the universe and life itself pose huge problems for atheists who have only
chance and necessity in their explanatory armamentarium.
On the other hand once we allow for the possibility of cosmic
intelligent design, explaining them is a different matter altogether.
Atheists, unable to allow a divine footprint, will hurl
accusations that I am using God to fill gaps in our knowledge that will be
filled in time with naturalistic scientific explanations. But in fact there are
gaps which scientific knowledge closes and others that it leaves wide open
unable to explain.
These first six questions reveal six such yawning gaps and make theism
as an explanation more plausible than atheism.
I’ll move on to the next 14 questions in subsequent blogs.
