We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
By Chance or By God
Is the world here by chance? Are we a product of an impersonal force that got the ball rolling and then history came about in what could be described as an “accident”? Greg’s father, an skeptic at the time, put it this way, “[C]ouldn’t we just have come about by accident? Isn’t that what the biologists tell us? Doesn’t evolutionary theory say that our minds and morality are just part of our survival drive?” Here is an excerpt from Greg’s response as recorded in Letters from a Skeptic:
_____________________________
OK, you believe there is some kind of “force” which must be the cause of things. I’m just trying to inquire into what this “force” must be like. Now since an effect can’t be greater than its cause, doesn’t the fact that humans (the effect) are personal mean that the cause (the force) must also be personal?
The theory of evolution, if it is true, can only give us a biological guess as to how humans came about. But the more fundamental question is how evolution produces the kind of results it does in the first place. What must the ultimate “force” of the universe be like for evolution to have the kind of characteristics it has? I’m asking something about the process itself. This is a metaphysical question (meta = above). Science can’t address it.
Now my argument, in a nutshell, is that the process itself can’t be pure chance. Look, the only way we can understand why our minds can understand physical reality in the first place is by “believing that the physical universe is “mind-like.” Our thinking about reality presupposes that there is a correspondence between our mind and reality. Science operates with this assumption. … Our mind is more than a network of chemical reactions. It can rationally comprehend physical aspects of the world because the world is rational. And since you can’t have rationality without a rational mind—you can’t have it by sheer chance—there must be a rational mind behind the physical world. Your “force” must be rational.
I’d say the exact same thing about morality. If morality is simply the result of chance, what a certain species of primates needed to help them survive, then our moral claims have no objective reference point. They don’t say anything about the way things are, only about the way we (by accident of evolution) feel. …
What is very important to see, however, is that chance, sheer chemical reactions, can be no more moral than they can be rational. And since the effect cannot be greater than the cause, the “force” which lies behind the cosmos must not only be rational: It must be moral.
And now the “it” is starting to look a whole lot like a person.
The same thing can, I believe, be said of our self-awareness. We are self-aware, conscious, and this is why we are free. But can chance chemical reactions, however complex they may be, ever be free? So with love. So with meaning. …
My point, then, is that the characteristics of personhood, and the longings which arise from personhood, require that the ultimate cause and context of personhood is personal. This, at least, “is the only rational assumption to make about “the force” (67-71).
Category: General
Tags: Apologetics, Evolution, God, Letters from a Skeptic
Related Reading
Is Jesus Really God?
While it is true that Jesus Himself never comes out and explicitly says He is God in the Gospels, He is everywhere portrayed in terms that lead us to conclude to the same thing. He says things like “If you see Me, you see the Father,” “Honor Me even as you honor the Father,” and…
Evolution as Believers?
I guess we’re on a roll on science topics these last few days. As a pastor my only concern with the creation/evolution “debate” is that those who feel they must deny evolution don’t make this a hurdle people have to jump over to get into the kingdom. As a fellow member of American society, however, my concern…
When God Endorsed Polygamy
We often find God acting as if he supports things we know, by other means, that he does not. For example, though his ideal was monogamy, it’s clear in the biblical narrative that, once God decided to permit men to acquire multiple wives and concubines, he was not above bearing the sin of his people…
Gospel “Contradictions” and Orality Studies
* This essay has been adopted from G. Boyd and Paul Eddy, Lord or Legend? (Baker, 2007). One of the standard tests historians put to ancient documents to assess their veracity is self-consistency. Generally speaking, fabricated accounts tend to include more inconsistencies than truthful accounts. Hence, the absence of inner contradictions contributes to a positive…
Toasted Ham and Nye
So, the big debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye is history. We didn’t really pay a whole lot of attention to it, and here’s why. In order for there to be a winner in this debate (because of the way it was framed) you had to choose between the false dichotomy of a believing the…
Why Bart Ehrman Doesn’t Have to Ruin Your Christmas (Or Your Faith) Part 6
This is the sixth of several videos Greg put together to refute Bart Ehrman’s claims published in the article What Do We Really Know About Jesus? In this segment, Greg addresses the apparent discrepancies in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew and the implausibility of the idea that they were simply fabricated. We’ve been hearing that people are using…