So let me lay down a challenge to such atheists and ask them to stop making unfounded assertions about God’s existence just from one particular view of one quarter of the big questions, and to consider the bigger picture, including the other three questions.
First, the origin of the universe. When we look at the universe around us we have to ask ourselves, ‘Why is it here at all?’ Why does anything exist rather than nothing? Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which parts of this universe may have formed – such as stars, sandstone and even species, that doesn’t tell us why those processes happened. Even if we can establish how the laws of nature could lead to such developments within the universe, that doesn’t tell us why those laws exist. Why not another set of physical laws? Why any physical laws at all? Why does anything exist rather than nothing existing?
Second, the origin of life. When we look at the various forms of living beings that exist in this world we have to ask ourselves, ‘How did life begin?’ Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which complex life may have evolved from simple life, through the natural selection of mutations in reproductions, that doesn’t tell us how reproductive processes began in the first place. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection can only work on a self-replicating system where variations in the product of the replication might be more or less fitted for survival. But how did the first self-replicating, naturally selectable organism arise? How did we get from non-replicating matter to self-replicating, naturally selectable life?
Third, the origin of consciousness. When we look at the people who live around us (and, indeed, at ourselves) we have to ask, ‘How did consciousness, and all that flows from it, begin?’ Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which the complexities of the human body may have developed, that doesn’t tell us why we have a conscious awareness, why we have such a strong sense of morality, or why we have the capacity to reason. It is interesting that Darwin himself, in the last decade of his life, began to doubt the reliability of the human brain. If, according to his theory, the brain has evolved because of survival rather than for truth, then would it have the capacity to address metaphysical questions with any level of reliability? Why should we trust anything it says about the big questions of morality and meaning? And (here is a real problem for anyone who wants to argue for atheism) what is our basis for trusting the brain’s capacity for any high level reasoning at all - such as the level of reasoning required to consider the existence or non-existence of God? Perhaps, for the atheist, this question is logically unanswerable?
This article was first published on Damaris' Culturewatch website (www.culturewatch.org) - used with permission.
© Copyright Nick Pollard (2009)
