by Graham Veale
The nature of this god is always vague and undefined and most annoyingly, plastic… any evidence of a deity will be natural, repeatable, measurable, and even observable…properties which god is exempted from by the believers’ own definitions, so there can be no evidence for it. 31
Myers seems to think that the word ‘God’ is meaningless because terms like ‘all powerful’ cannot be mathematically quantified or experimentally tested. But this objection is asinine. We cannot scientifically measure goodness, love, hate, justice, evil, wrong, right, existence, joy, ecstasy, sorrow, knowledge, rationality, mourning, beauty, or anger! Are these all vague, plastic and meaningless concepts? If we had to attach a scientific measurement for every term that we used, all communication would be futile. We have a good grasp of the characteristics of a perfect being; and this is all we need to evaluate theism.
A Brief Briefing on the State of the Design Argument
Over the last two chapters we have built a design argument for the existence of God. We have noted that the universe obeys laws of nature; laws that science cannot ultimately explain. And we have noted that our world has surprisingly complex and remarkable creatures. We know from our own experience, and from observing others, that minds create purpose and order. Agents compose essays, plan buildings and produce masterpieces. So it seems reasonable to suppose that a mind can explain the vast array of complex order that we see, both in the living world and in the wider universe. Of course, this mind needs enough power to impose order on the universe. 32
Incredibly, some sceptics argue that we are wrong to be amazed at the order we observe in our universe. If there was no complex order in our universe we couldn’t exist. And if we didn’t exist, no one would be around to marvel at all the complex order in the universe. So, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to discover that our universe has the right ingredients for life; if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here to observe it! But this confuses two very different ideas. It confuses sentence (A) If human observers exist, it is inevitable that they will observe an ordered universe with sentence (B) it is inevitable that human observers exist. (A) makes sense, but (B) is just crazy. Given all the ways our universe could have turned out, our existence is extremely unlikely.
But at this point the atheist can reply: ‘Ah! Have you con-sidered that if we give an infinite amount of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, sooner or later one will produce the complete works of Shakespeare by accident? So, if we live in an infinitely large universe, then sooner or later order was bound to emerge, just by chance, in some region or other. So we shouldn’t be surprised at the appearance of design. We just happen to live in a part of the universe with enough order for the existence of observers!’
This reply seems very weak. 33 Suppose our universe is infinitely large. We still have to ask ‘is this infinite universe governed by design or chance?’ So imagine two infinite universes, one created by God and one governed by chance. Which universe will contain more complex order? Obviously, the universe which God governs! While a small fraction of an infinite universe governed by chance will be ordered, the greater part will be chaotic. A universe governed by God would be ruled by a rational and creative agent, so it will be characterised by order, and contain many more examples of apparent design.
The more complex order we observe, the greater the probability that we live in a universe which has been designed. A small region of order is all that is required for the existence of humans; but we do not observe a small sea of regularity surrounded by an ocean of chaos; we observe an abundance of order wherever we look. So, even if our universe is infinitely large, our observations support theism and not atheism.
The atheist’s appeal to an infinite universe was suspicious in any case: any surprising fact could be explained this way. In an infinite universe governed by chance, every physically possible event occurs sooner or later. If a message formed in the clouds stating ‘God exists. Repent and believe the Gospel!’ the atheist could simply reply ‘well, the universe is vast, maybe infinitely so. So sooner or later, on some planet or other, clouds were bound to take on that shape!’ And if you visited a zoo to find a monkey typing out the works of Shakespeare you would conclude that one of the infinite numbers of typewriting monkeys dispersed throughout the infinite universe had finally gotten lucky.
Getting Personal about Right and Wrong
The existence of God is a controversial topic, so let’s state a proposition that everyone can agree on—‘It is always wrong to torture infants to death purely for fun.’ That’s a statement about morality, and I’ll assume that everyone reading this book agrees with the statement. (If you don’t you need to put this book down and seek psychiatric help very quickly.) However we can disagree over what makes that statement true.
Theism provides an excellent explanation for human morality. The statement ‘it is wrong to torture babies to death for fun’ expresses two things. It expresses a rule: ‘Don’t torture babies!’ But it also expresses a value: innocent human life is precious and worthy of protection. Human life is not a disposable good and we cannot use human beings any way we like. The rule (‘don’t torture babies’) is based on the value (‘innocent human life is precious’). Without the value the rule has no foundation.
Moral rules are based on the deep value and significance of each individual human life. Most cultures describe human life as sacred. We do not just protect human life; we prohibit stealing from and lying about other humans. Nearly every culture has some concept of theft and murder. It is interesting that every functioning culture has taboos concerning the procreation of human life. Rules about adultery and incest abound.
Social enculturation and genetic hardwiring might explain why we feel as if we have moral obligations. But not one of these scientific accounts can tell us if we really have moral obligations. Is it really true that we have an obligation to protect innocent life? Or is this belief a useful fiction—a by-product of evolving nervous systems? There are scientific and political theories that attempt to show how moral rules benefit the human race. But not one of these theories can tell us if an innocent human life really is precious, or if it just seems to be precious.
But we can’t make sense of our world of experience without a strong belief in moral realities. We experience moral outrage or personal guilt when we believe that moral rules are broken. Most of us are committed to the existence of moral rules and values. Even the worst psychopath offers an excuse for his actions (‘I couldn’t help my rage/I was only following orders’). We seem unable to live our lives believing that morality is a fiction.
So it seems that we need to explain the existence of moral rules that protect human life. Now these rules express values. So what gives each human individual such immense value? Values don’t reside in electrons and they’re not caused by the Strong Nuclear Force. Nearly all of our moral beliefs seem to be based on the value of the person. But if human beings are the unintended, inconsequential by-product of an impersonal universe then it is difficult to see why we would place any substantial value on an individual person. Many humans might like the idea of being intrinsically valuable. But so what? Why should their opinion trump the opinion of the sociopath or the tyrant?
Of course if God exists, he is the cause of everything else. That makes God the most valuable thing that exists. God is personal. And this goes some way to explaining the tremendous value of each individual human person. Part of the reason God is great is because he is rational and free. So we resemble the greatest thing in existence—God—in important ways. And our personal nature means that we can enter into a relationship with God—because he is personal too.
Furthermore we have significance because we were planned. We have a great value because we are significant to God. If atheism is true we are unplanned and are thus insignificant. If theism is true we have immense significance because the being who brought the Cosmos into being values us, made us to be like him, and can enter into a relationship
with us. So theism can account for the objective moral value of each human in a way that atheism cannot.
The Moral of Morality
British Law is seldom praised for its common sense, but in 2008 the Daily Telegraph revealed my country’s most ridiculous rule. Although it is not a criminal offence, there is a legal ban on dying in Parliament. This is proscribed because the Palace of Westminster is a Royal Palace, and anyone who dies in a Royal Palace is entitled to a state funeral. This rule is absurd. How would the courts punish a corpse? Would there be some sort of fine? And how could we ensure that it received a fair trial?
There are more absurd laws that authorities ignore. It is illegal to eat a mince pie on Christmas Day; but the police have yet to stop the practice. It is treason to place a postage stamp with the Queen’s image upside down; yet no one in living memory has been prosecuted under that law. 34 There is a general principle that humans recognize as binding. We should not be required to obey rules that are pointless or absurd.
Now consider the universe according to PZ Myers:
The universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. 35
We all seek good purposeful lives because we want to make a moral difference. In fact, we believe that we are obligated to seek such lives. We believe that we ought to aim at making the world a better place. But, as we said above, we can’t be required to engage in an activity if that activity is pointless or self-defeating. So how do we explain our obligation to live a good life in a heartless and nasty universe?
There is no guarantee that we can have a good and meaningful life in a universe that is purposeless and pointless. We are usually uncertain about the consequences of our moral actions. We give to charity, but we often don’t know what difference this will make. We try to be honest and to have integrity in our actions. But we never know for sure if this makes the world a more enjoyable place for us and those we love. Maybe we’re just providing opportunities for the dishonest and the conniving to get ahead. How can we tell if our moral actions matter?
Perhaps morality benefits humanity’s survival prospects. Morality certainly makes us feel noble and significant. Those are good reasons to be moral. But we might have equally good reasons to ignore our moral feelings. There are times when it might be in our interests not to be moral. So why must we be moral when we can get away with immorality? Why should the humanity of those living in Somalia or Tibet override my nation’s long term interests? Why should my nation’s long term interests override my short term political ambitions?
How could we be obligated to live moral lives in PZ Myer’s universe? There are, after all, perfectly reasonable alternatives. The philosopher Susan Wolf, 36 in a famous paper ‘Moral Saints’, suggested that a life of virtue is unattractive. Moral perfection is not a sensible goal, in Wolf’s opinion. A morally perfect person values other individuals at least as much as they love themselves. Moral Saints spend their time feeding the poor and helping the homeless. They do not have the time to develop their culinary skills, or the cash to visit the finest restaurants. Saints attempt to be inoffensive and nice. They cannot develop Paul Newman’s cool or Oscar Wilde’s wit.
We want life to be varied and interesting—and Saints are dull. It is better to strive for an interesting life, then, than a moral life. It is better, by far, to be Jack Nicholson on ‘Letterman’ than Maximilian Kolbe in Auschwitz. 37 If our moral feelings are the result of evolution’s purposeless process, and if we have no guarantee that trying to be moral makes the world better, what exactly is wrong with Wolf’s argument? Why can’t we value our personal tastes more than we value the well-being of others?
For the theist these objections to morality don’t even make sense. Yes, there is more to life than morality. Yes, we can be very grateful that Paul Newman made ‘The Hustler’ (and he was good in ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ too). But we live in a moral universe with God at its centre. Whenever we make a moral choice we do something intrinsically valuable because we are doing something that God sees and values.
It is absurd to demand that someone achieve the impossible. So, if there is no guarantee that our efforts to make a moral difference can succeed, we are not obligated to live a moral life. The only way we can have such a guarantee is if our lives have a purpose in a meaningful universe. We need to know that we are part of a plan, and a personal cause of our universe and our lives is necessary to produce such a plan. So if we believe that we are genuinely obligated to seek a good life we should believe in God. To put that another way, the existence of God explains why we ought to be good, and why moral rules are binding. 38
Morality and the appearance of design are explained if we live in a universe that has been created by a God of unlimited power and love. But Christian Theism is much more than a philosophical system. Christianity doesn’t just claim that God is the ultimate explanation for the order and existence of our universe. The Christian theist believes that God is the meaning of life; God is the most desirable thing, the greatest good. So theism should make sense of our deepest longings. Can God satisfy our spiritual desires?
To answer that question we will need more than philosophical proofs and religious experiences. We will need some reason to believe that God has revealed himself to us. In this chapter we argued that we have good evidence that God is real and we said something about what God is (unlimited power and love). In our final chapters we will ask if we can know who God is. We’ll begin by asking if the life of Jesus can give us an answer.
* * *
29 gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/12/wheres-your-evidence.html Posted on ‘Alternet.org/’ (Retrieved December 4, 2011).
30 In this chapter I use ‘Perfect Being’ theology to clarify what theists mean by ‘God’. I am not advocating an ontological argument. For an introduction to Perfect Being theology see Thomas V Morris’ Our Idea of God (IVP:1991).
31 Read Myers unintentionally hilarious foray into philosophical theology: scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/its_like_he_was_reading_my_mind.php (retrieved 1st July 2011).
32 ‘Cosmological and Design Arguments’ Richard Gale & Alexander Pruss in The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Religion Wainwright ed. 2005.
33 Lydia McGrew points out weaknesses in the ‘many-universes’ response to the design argument from Fine-Tuning in ‘Likelihoods, Multiple Universes, and Epistemic Context.’ Philosophia Christi 7 (2005): 475–81.
34 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568475/Ten-stupidest-laws-are-named.html. The BBC claims, ‘Some of the laws did exist but have since been overturned.’ www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17610820.
35 scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/morality_doesnt_equal_god.php (retrieved 16th April 2012).
36 Susan Wolf’s classic article ‘Moral Saints’ can be read in an anthology edited by Louis P Pojman Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings.
37 Incarcerated in a concentration camp, Fr. Kolbe voluntarily took the place of a fellow prisoner who had been condemned to death by starvation.
38 For discussions of the moral argument see J. Wall and D. Baggett Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford:2011); W. Wainwright’s Religion and Morality (Ashgate:2005); J. Hare’s God and Morality (Blackwell:2006).
5
Whales, Tall Tales, and Miracles
There is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue sh
all swear allegiance.’
Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
In 1861 boats from the whaler The Star of the East chased down a huge Sperm whale near the Falkland Islands, and put a harpoon in the behemoth’s side. The beast was in no hurry to die; as the crews closed in to finish off their prey, she lifted nearly ten tonnes of tail out of the water and brought it down on the lead boat. It disintegrated, smashed into infinitesimal fragments, and its occupants were scattered. The harpooner, James Bartley, was tossed a dozen feet into the air, and then plunged deep into ice cold Antarctic waters.
Bartley struggled to return to the surface, but the shock of the freezing temperature numbed his limbs. The sheer violence of the whale’s death throes had turned the water into bloody foam; he found it difficult to navigate through the maelstrom. He managed to swim for a few meters before he realised he was making a horrible, deadly error. He was swimming towards the gaping mouth of the whale. Still underwater, he attempted to regain his bearings, and to strike for a safer spot on the surface. But the ocean turned dark. He could dimly perceive the huge maw that had surrounded him. Paralysed with fear, yet fully conscious, James Bartley was swallowed alive.
The whalers on the other boat were unaware of Bartley’s fate. Failing to find their friend, they assumed he had drowned. The second whaling boat dragged the dead whale back to The Star of the East, and began to strip the whale down to the bone before the gathering sharks could feast on the carcass. It was late in the day and the whale men hurried at their task. They began by gutting the corpse and ripping out the whale’s stomach; and out tumbled James Bartley, screaming like a new-born child. He had been bleached white by the stomach acids, and driven half mad by terror. But Bartley was alive. Furthermore, he recovered to achieve fame as ‘a second Jonah’. His case caused a sensation in the English medical establishment. He was a living, breathing miracle.