The Bible tells us that we as humans have a knowledge that God exists, even though we suppress that knowledge.  Rom. 1:18-23: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

In this lesson, we will take a look at the evidence from the universe and ask which worldview – theism (that is, a belief in God) or atheism – best explains the universe in which we live.  In doing this, I’m not suggesting that we can present a definitive proof of God’s existence, but I do think that we can suggest areas in which an atheistic worldview fails to adequately account for the evidence around us – and doing this may lead an open-minded atheist to be sufficiently curious to engage in further conversation and exploration of these questions.

In looking at this evidence, I am going to try to remain within the scientific and philosophical parameters that most atheists accept.  I will not challenge current scientific theories about the history of the universe, but will instead use information that most atheists consider valid in order to show the limitations of the atheistic worldview.

 

The Evidence for a Designed Universe

There are certain key points on which most scientists are now agreed:

• The universe had a beginning. For much of the 20^th century, many scientists (e.g., Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan) believed in an eternal universe that expanded and contracted, but recent calculations have shown that the expansion will not stop and that the universe will not collapse on itself.  The universe had an origin at a single moment in time, and that origin event will not be repeated.
• The cause of the universe’s beginning has not been discovered by science. We do not know of any physical force that could have caused the initial expansion of space and matter known as the “Big Bang.”
• Fine-tuning of (preexisting?) universal constants. When the Big Bang started, it required the existence of universal constants whose origins are unknown. “For each constant there is an extremely broad range of number values that would result in a cosmic wasteland.  But to generate a universe with life, universal constants must be confined within an extremely narrow range.  Appearing just micromoments after the big bang, there was no time for these constants to have evolved.  They simply appear, already possessing the extraordinary precision that will allow a life-bearing universe to form.” – Philip Rolnick, Origins: God, Evolution, and the Question of the Cosmos, p. 131.  The universal constants include gravity, which had to be present by 10^-43 seconds after the beginning of the Big Bang.  Rolnick: “A change of just one part in 10⁶⁰ in either direction, too much direction or too much outward force, would have prevented the formation of a life-bearing universe. . . . The structures and dynamics of stars, galaxies, and planets could not be produced and maintained without it” (pp. 132-133).  Other universal constants that were present from the beginning include the strong nuclear force (which holds protons and neutrons together), weak nuclear force (which slows the rate at which stars burn hydrogen), and the electromagnetic force.  The Princeton-based theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said, “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”

For believers, the facts seem to point to a universe designed by God.  But this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe.  When we begin to look at biological life, for instance, we find that even at its simplest, one-celled level, organisms are far more complex than anyone a hundred years ago could have imagined.  For instance, in every cell of the human body, there is a strand of DNA that consists of 3 billion letters (using a four-letter code sequence).

How do atheists deal with this?  They usually offer one of three explanations:

• They say that no matter how improbable the conditions for our existence are, they obviously did occur, because we’re here. Richard Dawkins: “Two main explanations have been offered for our planet’s peculiar friendliness to life.  The design theory says that God made the world, placed it in the Goldilocks zone, and deliberately set up all the details for our benefit.  The anthropic approach is very different, and has a faintly Darwinian feel.  The great majority of planets in the universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their respective stars, and not suitable for life.  None of that majority has life.  However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.” – Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 163-164.
• The universal constants and the universe’s beginning do not need to be explained, either because they are an illusion, or because they are part of the eternal structure of matter, or because we don’t yet have the data to answer them, or because our minds are not capable of figuring out the answer.
• This theory is postulated by Richard Dawkins and numerous other modern atheists.  According to this theory, our universe is only one of a perhaps-infinite number of other universes that sprang out of a much larger preexisting universe.  So, no matter how improbable our life-producing universe might seem in isolation, it no longer seems so improbable if it were merely one of a perhaps infinite number of universes.

How should we respond to these arguments?  The first two explanations are essentially a refusal to answer the question, and the third is purely speculative.

Given the paucity of evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the universe, why are atheists so confident that they have ruled out the possibility of God?  Richard Dawkins says he has done so because he considers a God hypothesis much more complex than whatever phenomenon God’s design purports to explain.  In other words, no matter how complex and improbable multiverses might seem, God is even more complex and improbable.  But this line of reasoning falls into the error of mistaking God for a physical cause within the universe.  When looking for physical causes in the universe, Ockham’s razor (the simplest explanation is the best) is usually a good guide, all other things being equal.  But when the cause for what we are trying to explain lies outside the system, it’s not a good guide.  Creators are often more complex than anything in their creation.  Michelangelo, as a human being, was far more complex than any of the paints or imagery that he used in his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  When asking whether the universe was designed or whether it was self-creating, we cannot rule out the possibility of a creator on the basis of the creator’s alleged complexity.

What is the use of this discussion of contemporary scientific views of origins?  It’s useful to point out to atheists that the scientific discoveries of the structure of the universe don’t comport particularly well with naturalistic theories of origins – but do seem to suggest that the universe was designed with a structure that would lead to the existence of life (including human life) on earth.

At first glance, the argument that I’m presenting may appear to be simply a “God of the gaps” argument that could be disproved with additional scientific knowledge, but I don’t think that it is.  I’m not simply saying that because we don’t currently know what caused the Big Bang to begin, we therefore have to believe that there must have been a God to start the process.  Instead, I’m saying that the entire structure of the universe’s origins – including the fact that it had a precise origin in time and that its development required some very precisely tuned physical laws and processes that were uniquely suited to the development of life on earth – fit much better with a theory of an intentional creation rather than a purely naturalistic, random process.  To fit this data into a theory of a naturalistic, random process, atheists have to appeal to an idea that is entirely speculative (e.g., multiverses) or simply admit that they cannot account for it.

 

Atheists’ Response to the Argument from Design

Atheists often respond to the argument from design by making two points:

• The natural world has the appearance of design, but this is because natural selection acted as a designer.
• The natural world is badly designed. It has the appearance of randomness, not a thoughtful creation.

In answer to the first point, I don’t think that natural selection can explain all of the design in the universe.  It cannot explain cosmological fine-tuning (the existence of precisely tuned universal constants), for instance.  But in addition, I think that the use of natural selection as God’s mechanism of design does not in any way rule out the existence of a designer.  Just as God uses human agents to accomplish his purposes in history, so he may have used natural selection to accomplish his purposes in nature.  When we examine the entire tapestry of the natural world, we can see evidence of the divine designer’s intentions, even if the mechanism that the designer used might have at times involved natural processes rather than miraculous interventions.

But what about the argument that the universe is badly designed?  To make the charge that the universe is badly designed, someone would have to know the intentions of the designer.  For example, some atheists have noted ways in which the human body could have been designed to last longer and to experience less pain in old age.  But the charge that humans could have been better constructed assumes something about the designer’s intentions that is not necessarily correct.  Actually, when we look at what the Bible says about God’s intentions for his creation, what we see in nature accords pretty well with it.

So, how strong is the design argument?  In my view, the strongest parts of the design argument focus on the complexity and improbability of life, the uniqueness of earth as a planet where life (and especially human life) can exist, and the fine-tuning of the universe.  The appearance of design in the universe does not prove the existence of a creator, but if a convincing naturalistic explanation for the design of the universe has not been presented (which I don’t think it has), it shows that the existence of a divine designer is likely.  This divine designer had to be external to the universe and also uniquely interested in human life.

 

Humans’ God Consciousness

As the psychologist Justin Barrett noted in his book Why Would Anyone Believe in God?, humans seem to be hardwired to believe in a supernatural creator.  Even many atheists concede this point.  Atheists often attribute this to a quirk of evolution (see Pascal Boyer’s Religion Explained, for instance), but it is what we would expect from a God-designed universe.  If we have a sense of God’s existence, could that be an indication that a divine creator designed us with the capacity to have a relationship with him?

 

Humans’ Moral Consciousness

One of C. S. Lewis’s apologetic arguments, which he presented in Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man, is that all of us have a consciousness of right and wrong that makes sense only in a theistic universe.  Atheists can explain why altruism and moral consciousness might have evolved (in the sense that they might have been conducive to group survival), but they cannot explain why we ought to give moral weight to these moral claims.  Atheists are confident that they can be moral without God, but their bases for ethics differ.  Most commonly, atheistic ethical systems fall into one of the following categories:

• Utilitarianism – the greatest good for the greatest number. One problem with this ethical system is that it offers little incentive to care for less valued people.
• Human rights. While atheists who believe in a rights-based ideology are confident that humans have inherent rights, they do not agree on where these rights come from or even what these rights are.
• “Tit-for-tat” – Be kind to others until they do something unkind to you, in which case you can then punish them by retaliating.
• Kantian ethics – the “categorical imperative.” This ethical system suggests that we can find out certain absolute, unchanging ethical principles by asking the question, “What if everybody did this?”

Of these ethical systems, utilitarianism and “tit-for-tat” are strictly pragmatic and strategic; they do not offer a basis for respect for human beings.  Human rights ideology and Kantian ethics offer greater promise in that regard, but neither one has a grounding in an atheistic universe.  Both take aspects of Christian ethics and assert that they can still operate in a universe without any purpose or meaning.

The fundamental problem with atheistic ethics is that atheists have not proposed a way to get from an “is” to an “ought” – that is, to get from a statement about what is factually true about the universe to a statement about what ought to happen.  And yet we long for an “ought.”  We want to say, for instance, that certain actions are wrong and should be punished and certain actions are right and should be rewarded.  Atheists can either give us a pragmatic reason for ethics (e.g., utilitarianism or “tit-for-tat”) or they can take a leap of faith and assert their belief in human rights.  But they cannot link absolute moral claims to their materialistic view of the universe.  The fact that they continue to live as though they can make absolute moral claims suggests an inconsistency in their thinking and highlights the inadequacy of an atheistic worldview.

 

Humans’ Desire for Rationality, Purpose, and Beauty

At some level, every person is seeking meaning and purpose for their lives.  The atheist believes that there is no larger purpose in the universe, and that each person gives their own meaning to their own individual life.  The theist, by contrast, asserts the possibility of an external source of meaning.  Similarly, most atheists have a strong respect for rationality and reason, but a universe that originated by chance does not offer any reason to expect such rationality.  Theism does.  Similarly, a materialistic universe does not give any reason for us to believe that our appreciation of beauty is anything more than a trick of the evolutionary process.  Theism, by contrast, suggests that beauty and the aesthetic might be reflective of a divine creator’s intention.

 

Conclusion

The atheist has to assert a great disjuncture between the universe and our own experiences:

• The atheist believes that the universe’s appearance of design is an illusion that can be explained through natural processes.
• The atheist believes that our sense of morality originated through an impersonal evolutionary process, but is mostly trustworthy, even though there is no clear explanation of how we can get an “ought” from an “is.”
• The atheist believes that rationality originated through an impersonal evolutionary process, yet is still trustworthy.
• The atheist believes that the universe doesn’t give us any real purpose or meaning, but through an assertion of our will we can find purpose or meaning for ourselves in spite of the random, purposeless nature of the universe.
• The atheist believes that our aesthetic appreciation is merely a byproduct of evolution – but nevertheless can be a source of joy for us, even though it is not grounded in anything substantive.
• The atheist believes that our sense of God is a trick of the evolutionary process and should be discarded.

By contrast, the theist is free to assert that our perception of the universe matches reality.  The universe appears to be designed for us because it was designed for us.  We have a moral consciousness that reflects objective reality because that moral consciousness was given to us by God.  We can trust our reason (within limits) because it is a divine gift.  We have a longing for purpose and meaning because God created us to have a transcendent purpose.  Our sense of beauty is not merely a trick of evolution, but is instead a gift that enables us to connect with God and see the beauty that he has put into creation.  And the theist believes that our sense of God is not a trick of the evolutionary process, but is instead indicative of God’s existence.  Which of these two worldviews – the theistic worldview that trusts our senses, or the atheist worldview that explains away much of what we think we perceive – offers a better explanation of reality?  It is my conclusion that the theistic worldview does.  On point after point, the atheist has to assert that what we observe or feel is not grounded in reality.  Theism, by contrast, takes our sensory perceptions seriously and offers a coherent worldview that matches the information that we have about ourselves and the universe around us.