Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Cordial Catholic

Home
Catholic
Belief in God Makes More Sense Than Your Mind-Bending Atheism

Belief in God Makes More Sense Than Your Mind-Bending Atheism

Last updated on: February 27, 2019 at 2:59 pm by K. Albert Little

Belief in God Makes More Sense Than Your Mind-Bending Atheism 2019-02-27T14:59:33-04:00 K. Albert Little

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I was recently in a conversation about science and religion with a stranger in a coffee shop. It was part of a lecture series put on by a few friends of mine, a discussion of issues at the intersection of the secular and religious and the conversation turned to the idea of God’s imprint in nature and the history of science.

Science, in its origins and most of its history, traditionally led practitioners closer towards God. Studying God’s creation, which was the pursuit of science, actually led believers towards a greater appreciate and awe of God the Creator. Science was a Christian pursuit. This is why there’s still an observatory at the Vatican—and a scientist-monk on staff.

It’s been popular science’s growing antagonism towards faith and religion that’s led, in turn, to religion’s increasing skepticism and wariness of science. It’s a mutually bad relationship, but ask any Christian working in the sciences and you’ll find that there are lots of believers out there. That science—on the ground science done by scientists—isn’t actually as opposed to faith as the loudest voices make it out to be.

There are, actually, lots of scientists who believe in God and whose faith and convictions, whose research and experimentation and inquiries, actually lead them closer to their Creator.

In conversation, the idea came up that belief in God actually makes it easier to understand the physical world. That, actually, believing in a Creator with a divine plan for His creation rather than cosmic chance makes a lot more sense—and was less stressful of a position to explain and maintain. It was, simply put, more simple.

If we choose not to believe in a Divine Creator we’re suggesting that the universe, and everything it contains, happened to come together through random chance; based on some kind of natural selection. This requires that protons somehow knew how to be attracted to electrons; that a seed somehow knew to grow into a tree; that a fish somehow knew to grow legs and leave the sea.

That every awe-inspiring thing we see around us, all of the order in nature, somehow came about through chaos.

“Isn’t it easier?” I said, “to just believe that God created it.”

Doesn’t it make more sense to see the imposed order of things; the plan for the seed to become the tree; the attraction of the proton to the electrons to be inspired by the will of God—put into motion by God.

It is much more a leap of logic to believe that everything around me simply came into being through chance.

Two examples.

First, let’s take the protons and electrons. I would suggest that there’s no way for a proton to be attracted to a neutron by itself. It cannot have a goal in mind (i.e., to be attracted to a electron) because it cannot think, it has no mind or creativity. It cannot think outside itself. Therefore, a law which says the proton is attracted to an electron must be imposed on it.

If a law is being imposed on the proton then it must be imposed by an outside source.

It is much more simple to believe that that source is God, and omnipotent creator, rather than some random chance event in the universe.

(And, in fact, since protons are always attracted to electrons this couldn’t even be explained by “random chance” anyway. It is not random.)

Second, let’s take the idea of simplicity. In our coffee shop conversation, I suggested that it’s easier to look around and say that God created everything rather than to try and wrap our heads around this all coming together through random confluence and happenstance; that it is divinely ordered rather than emergent through chaos.

Not all simple things are true, and someone could easily object on those grounds, but consider this. Occam’s Razor suggests that when several different explanations exist the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely. So, which is more likely in this scenario. I come home to find my couch is torn to pieces and my dog is sleeping happily amongst the ruins. Do I appeal to the most simple explanation, removing all assumptions, that my couch tore itself apart? This would be the easiest of explanations, involving the fewest assumptions and variables, including no other actors or agents or outside influences, but does it make the most sense?

Instead, wouldn’t it make more sense to complicate the scenario by adding in my dog as the culprit?

Here I’ve actually complicated the situation by adding an actor or an agent (i.e., my dog) but the situation is explained much more sensibly.

Is it possible that my couch simply ate itself? I suppose all the fabric seams could give way at once, by the most improbable of odds. However, it makes much more sense that my dog simply decided to have an early afternoon snack.

The universe is the same way.

Is it possible that from nothing everything sprang into existence and ordered itself exactly to make the world we see today? Or is it more likely that something is planning and organizing from a greater vantage point than ours?

I would submit that it’s the latter, even if it appears to complicate the explanation it actually makes more sense.

Ultimately, we can walk logically, together, up to a point.

Does belief in a Creator God make more sense than believing that the ordered universe emerged from utter chaos? I think so, and I think I’ve logically shown that. I think I’ve shown, quite sensibly, that it actually makes more sense than trying to bend our minds around atheism or a naturalistic explanation of the world. The couch most likely will not eat itself. A proton will not be attracted to an electron, every time, without a law being imposed. But that’s where I have to stop; to go further, to decide what that means for your life has to be up to you.

Does it make sense to try to wrap your head around a chaotic universe somehow ordering itself? A self-eating couch? Or could it be that an outside, organizing force, must instead exist? And that, we call God.

Previous Post

February 25, 2019

There is a Crisis in the Church But it isn't Just the Clergy

Next Post

March 5, 2019 St. Francis de Sales' Advice for Lent: Prepare to be Tempted

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Appearances Christian Living Explaining the Faith Podcast Tough Questions Uncategorized Why I'm Catholic

Select a Month January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 July 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Tetragrammaton" refer to in biblical studies?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The first four commandments The first four books of the Bible The four Gospels The four-letter name of God

Support this
Column