Skip to main content

5 Things That Are Best Explained By Theism

When discussing my faith with non-believers, I find that the average person is oblivious to the explanatory scope of theism. That is, God's existence explains several things that would be difficult to explain in any other way. In this post, I am not presenting any formal arguments, but am just pointing out what these things are. Arguments will be addressed in subsequent posts.

1. The Origin of the Universe

Neither atheism, nor alternative views of God can adequately explain the origin of the universe. Modern science has lead us to the conclusion that the space-time universe that we inhabit had a definite beginning some 14 billion years ago (give or take a little). The problem for the atheist comes when we realize that any contingent thing has an explanation for its existence that is not found within itself, and that if something had a beginning or could have failed to exist (which describes the universe), it is by its very nature contingent. Neither do other views of God adequately explain this phenomenon. For example, pantheistic views of God cannot account for this. Pantheism and naturalism are two sides of the same coin in this regard. They run across the same problem of an inadequate ground for the origin of the universe.

2. Objective Morality

Before I begin, let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that you cannot do good things unless you believe theism is true. Nor am I saying that we cannot know what is right or wrong unless we read the Bible. Both of these are common misrepresentations of the theistic view. What I am saying is that theism provides an adequate ground for objective moral values and duties, while other worldviews do not appear to have such an adequate ground. Most Christians hold that God's moral commands are grounded in His perfect moral character. That is, right and wrong ultimately finds its ground in the character of a Necessary, Omnibenevolent Being. Even many atheist philosophers have come to the conclusion that morality is, in fact, subjective. But surely this is absurd! To confess morality as subjective is to confess that there is no REAL moral difference between loving a child and torturing a child for fun. Subjective morality is merely morality based on my personal preference or taste. Surely, there was a difference between a Hitler or a Stalin and a Mother Teresa! If you think that Hitler was wrong, and would have still been morally wrong even if he had successfully exterminated or brainwashed all of his opposition, then you believe in objective morality. Yet such a morality must have an adequate ground. An adequate ground cannot come from humanity, nor from contingent things. Theism is far and away a better ground for objective morality than any of the alternatives.

Now, I fully expect someone who is feeling a little uncomfortable with this point to raise the objection, "What about the Canaanites?" or "What about [insert moral objection to something the Bible says here]?" While these issues can wait for another post (so as not to get too far off-topic on this post), it should suffice to point out that those who make such appeals believe that they are appealing to an objective standard of right and wrong in order to condemn something they find morally disagreeable. They are not merely saying that something in the Bible doesn't suit their fancy. They are trying to condemn something that they perceive as wrong by appealing to a standard beyond themselves. Why would anything, including such a perceived wrong, be truly wrong unless morality were objective? And how can you have objective morality without an adequate ground for such an objective morality? These are preliminary questions that can and must be answered before we can discuss what right and wrong actually are.

3. Fine-Tuning

In recent times, scientists have discovered that certain constants and quantities appear to be precisely fine-tuned for intelligent life. Each of these constants must fall within an extremely narrow range (and I mean extremely in the strongest sense of the word), or else no life at all would have developed. It is not that life would have developed in a different way if these constants and quantities would have been different. Life would not have developed at all. It is often pointed out that, at least in regards to the constants and quantities present at the initial stages of the universe,  there are only three alternatives: chance, physical necessity, and design. Physical necessity cannot adequately explain these constants, and the numbers that are calculated by the chance hypothesis are so astronomically untenable that we can safely say that it was not due to chance alone. This leaves only one option. Atheism cannot adequately account for this, and neither can views like pantheism or panentheism. When we add other "coincidences" to this list beyond the initial constants and quantities, we see a clear picture of a universe designed by an Intelligent Agent. Theism provides the best explanation for why we see such fine-tuning in the universe.

4. The Immaterial Soul

Tim Stratton has developed an interesting argument, called the Free Thinking Argument Against Naturalism, which demonstrates not only that naturalism is false, but also the existence of an immaterial human soul. While I would recommend that you check out the argument, I don't have the time or space to deal with it here. In short, we are reasonable to accept the existence of an immaterial human soul, since several absurd things would follow if we were merely physical beings. Take determinism as an example of this. Yet on atheism, at least a naturalistic atheism, there is no room for an immaterial soul. The same can be said about pantheism and other worldviews. The best explanation for the immaterial human soul is the existence of a theistic God.

5. Evil

This is closely related to objective morality, mentioned above. However, most people do not stop and realize that, in order for objective evil to exist, objective good must also exist. The best explanation for the existence of evil in the world is theism. Over the years, people have claimed that the existence of evil was a problem for theists. However, it is widely recognized today that the so-called "Problem of Evil" does not pose an actual problem for theism. Rather, the existence of evil in the world can be used to demonstrate that a good, theistic God exists. As I pointed out earlier in this post, other views, such as atheism and pantheism, fail to provide an adequate explanation for why objective good and evil exist. Thus, the existence of evil (and of good) is best explained by the existence of a theistic God.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

7 Problems With "Lack-Theism" Atheism

In recent years, atheists have increasingly attempted to redefine the words "atheism" and "atheist". Now, rather than being the negative position on the question of God's existence, many atheists have redefined atheism to be a mere "lack of belief" in God. They do not seem to care that there was already a term for this position ("non-theism"). This is often done in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof that comes from taking the negative position on God's existence. Yet, in attempting to eliminate this burden of proof, the one who redefines atheism in this manner has jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Here are 7 reasons why this definition of atheism is problematic for those who use this definition:

1. It Is Rooted In The Etymological Fallacy

In order to justify this redefinition, many atheists will appeal to the etymology of the word "atheist." The term "atheist" comes from two Greek roots, "a-" me…

Profile Of A Modern Pharisee

The Pharisees were one of the major Jewish sects in the days of Christ. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus consistently clashed wit h this religious group on multiple issues. Even though the Pharisees do not exist in the way they did in the 1st century, many religious leaders and laypeople today still fit the profile of a Pharisee. Here are some traits of the Pharisees, both ancient and modern:

1. The Pharisees cared more about their traditions than they did about obedience to God.
The Pharisees believed in the Law of Moses, and observed it strictly. They were so careful to observe the Law of Moses, in fact, that they observed additional guidelines that were meant to help them avoid violating the Law. The Pharisees ultimately observed these guidelines to the neglect of the finer parts of the Law, such as justice, mercy, and love. Jesus clashed with them and called them out on this point (see Matthew 23:23-24). Today, we call this practice "legalism". Legalism is a hallma…