A few weeks ago, we did
a mini-series looking at the Cosmological Argument (CA) for the existence of
God. It had a decent reception, and I found it interesting to do, so I am going
to write an article or two more in a similar direction. What I have in mind to
review are the Teleological and Moral Arguments for the existence of God.
Teleology
The Teleological
Argument (TA) comes first, and it relies on some of the things we learned from
the CA. Teleology is the study of ends. We know things exist. But why do they
exist? I do not mean by that, what processes brought them about, but rather, what
purposes do they serve? What is the meaning of existence, both universally and
for mankind in particular?
Materialism’s Answer
According to some,
there is none. Life and the universe, they say, have no purpose. Existence is a
cosmic accident, a chance event. Such people are materialists, and this
position is a necessity of their worldview. They believe that the only causes
for all the effects we see are material and efficient. There is only the stuff
of matter, and the forces like gravity and electromagnetism that make the
materials move through time and space.
This view allows no
room for the supernatural. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, supernatural
does not necessarily mean religious. At its most basic meaning, the
supernatural is anything that exists outside of nature. Materialism takes it
for granted that nothing does.
If that is true, then
it follows there can be no purpose to the universe. Purpose, after all, is an
element of intelligence. For something to have a purpose, someone must decide
beforehand what that purpose will be. Someone must say, “I intend for this
action to have this result.” If the universe itself were to have purpose, then
obviously there would have to be someone existing beforehand to give such
meaning to the cosmos. Materialism cannot permit that, because it would mean
there are answers beyond those observable in the physical world. In other
words, there would be questions the natural sciences could not answer.
Materialism’s
Problems
When it comes to
teleology, there are some serious problems with materialism. First, and most
obviously, is its reliance on chance. If the universe does not have purpose,
then it must be accidental. That means it is the result of random processes
that just happened to have resulted in the world as we know it. We are lucky to
be here.
Chance
So what is the problem
with that? The problem is how small the margin is. I am no scientist, to spell
out precise figures. If you are interested in them, I would suggest books like
Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator. But in general, consider the strength
of the force of gravity; the strength of chemical bonds; the size and shape of
our galaxy; the distance of our solar system from the center of that galaxy;
the size and energy output of our sun; the distance of earth from the sun; the
relation of earth to its moon; and the makeup of our atmosphere. These are just
a handful of factors that contribute to the existence of the universe, and of
life. If any one of them were to be changed beyond what is an incredibly small
margin in each case, the whole thing would fall apart.
Which brings us back to
chance. The odds of the elements of existence coming together accidentally, and
sticking together, are irreducibly small. The only way they could happen
randomly would be if the universe was eternal, with no limits of time placed on
it to restrict the combination of chances. However, as we learned from the CA,
the universe is not eternal. It has to have a beginning, a fact which even most
materialists have now been forced to admit. But even extending that beginning
back tens of billions of years cannot eliminate the difficulty in getting the
universe we have. It is too well designed for it to be reasonably assumed to be
random.
Adaptation
That is not the only
problem, but the rest are related to it. Another assumption of materialism is
that the universe is always adapting. But why should that be a good thing? Why
do adaptations continually make progress, rather than regress? It is a faith in
the future that is not warranted by a belief in a random universe.
Anticipation
And speaking of the
future, what about anticipation? Consider an enzyme. Stated very basically,
enzymes are biological molecules that use controlled reactions to break down
fuels and power cells. Now, that begs a very basic question. How did blind
material recognize that there was fuel to be broken down, in order produce the
enzymes to do that work? Nature would have to “know,” somehow, that the purpose
for enzymes existed before enzymes came to be. The process has to be guided by
an ability to look ahead. And of course, a merely material universe does not
have this forward-thinking capacity.
Intellect
One final problem
presents itself in the materialistic view, which is the very concept of having
a view. Human beings, at least, do have intellect. We have the ability to
determine purposes and attempt to see them through. So where does that ability
come from? Again referring to the CA, we know that mind is an effect that
requires a cause. It could not create itself, since nothing can do so. So it
must come from somewhere else. But there is no materialist explanation for this
process. Matter, space, time, and energy have no intelligence. They are
intelligible, or in other words, we can use intellect to observe them. But they
do not think on their own. They do not contain the building blocks of mind, as
they can be said to do of physical and biological systems. So from a
materialist perspective, rationality appears out of nowhere. It is a great deus
ex machina, which is quite ironic.
Theism’s Answer
Materialism has fallen
flat. We find purpose and order in the universe that mere physical existence
cannot explain from within. The rational alternative, then, is design from
without.
A Watch in the Woods
Consider this classic
illustration. Walking through the woods, you see light glinting under the leaves
in front of you. You stoop down to brush them away, and discover a pocket
watch. The casing is etched with a monogram. The face is numbered in order from
1 to 12, and two hands move across it in the same direction and at different but
regular rates. Opening it, you find a mechanism of springs and gears that
control its operation.
Now in looking at all
of this, would it be rational to assume that this watch was the product of
those woods? Did it, over the ages, surface gold from under the earth, shape
it, and accidentally scrape letters on the back? Did it burn sand on a
riverbank to produce glass? Are the gears mutated acorns that happened to fall
together in what merely happens to resemble a function?
No sane person would
assume that. They would look at the operation of the watch and assume that it
was the product of intellect. And with enough time to consider its workings,
even if they had never seen a watch before, they would determine that it was
designed for the purpose of keeping time.
Specified Complexity
Materialists sometimes
argue that this illustration is unhelpful. We recognize watches as products of
mind because we already know that is what they are. The universe is not a human
invention, so we should not impose human categories on it. I do not stipulate to
the point that we only know what a watch is because we have prior experience with
them, but that is beside the point. The point is specified complexity.
Specificity is order,
while complexity is akin to chaos. Specified complexity is an oxymoron found
both in human endeavor and in nature. Writing is a great example of specified
complexity (though it will definitely make more sense if you read this
illustration rather than just listening to my recording). If you see the
letters “AAAAAAAAA,” you have a series that is specified. They follow the same
pattern. If, on the other hand, you see “dsalfjerhevdv,” you have an example of
complexity. There is no pattern at all. However, both sets share in common that
they do not represent language. They have no meaning. Now consider reading the
letters “My name is Stanley.” These letters are complex, a lack of pattern
further complicated by the introduction of spaces. But they are also specified.
I have applied the conventions of English writing to them to bring them into a
recognizable order. I have imposed purpose on them.
So what is the point of
all of this? Well, it is that we need an explanation of specified complexity,
because it is something we find in nature. Materialism explains it through
chance, but as we have seen, that is really no explanation at all. So what else
can produce it? The only other force we know of capable of imparting specified
complexity is intellect, since we know that human intellect does so in human
things. Our most rational assumption is that an intellect beyond the universe
has given the universe its purpose, its specified complexity, since we have no
other viable alternatives.
The Teleological
Argument
This, then, is the TA.
We perceive purpose in the universe. The appearance of purpose cannot be
explained by random chance or by purely material processes. The only thing
known to impart purpose is intellect. Therefore, the purpose evident in the
universe is most likely the result of an intellect that preceded it. This
intellect is best identified with the Necessary Being, which the CA says must
be the cause of everything in the universe. The creator is also the planner.
Hopefully this helps to
make some sense of some very difficult concepts, and that the applications are
evident. The main point is that the world is not random. It is here for a
reason, and so are we. A system of thought which argues that life is
meaningless is a path to despair, and it is also one that ignores the evidence
in favor of assuming there is nothing more to life than what we can see.
Theism, on the other hand, can tell us more. It can assure us that the desire
for meaning is more than a mirage. It is, instead, part of the purpose for
which we were created.
That is an important
starting point. Once we know meaning is available, we can begin pursuing it.
And ultimately, that meaning is found in Jesus Christ. His stated purpose was
to save mankind (Matthew
18:11) by dying on the cross (John
3:14, 15). He predicted that death to His followers, and also predicted His
resurrection as the proof of all He had said of Himself (Mark
10:33, 34). When everything happened just as He said (Matthew
28:6), it became clear who He was and what we ought to do (John
20:24–29). God had created us to love Him forever. Through Jesus, and
through Him alone (John
14:6), we can do so. We exist to glorify the Lord for all that He has done
for us, for giving us life and saving us from death. That is our purpose. Everyone
who finds it is blessed. Anyone who refuses it will find that meaning always
escapes them. So if we know this truth, we have a responsibility to share it.
Nothing is more important than knowing what we are for, and how to achieve it.
Since this has been an
article on its own, I am going to hold off on the Moral Argument until a later
date. When I do approach it, though, I will be referring back to the TA a good
bit. The Moral Argument is ultimately a specific extension of it.
Thanks for checking out the Quest Forums
blog! If you enjoyed this post, please consider following me here, on Twitter
(@Quest_Forums), or on Facebook (“Quest Forums”). Links are in the sidebar. I
am always looking for new questions and comments, so submit yours on any of
these sites or by emailing questforums.ask@gmail.com.
And please, spread the word! The share buttons below are
a great way to do that. I want to connect with as many people as possible, so
if you know anyone with questions about the Bible, send them my way.
No comments:
Post a Comment