The God Necessity?

A couple months back I went through the Does God Exist? DVD series by Focus on the Family (again,) and I was asked by my teacher to write an essay on what I had learned in the course. Well, it grew and grew to become a rather large research assignment that ended in a much larger paper than originally planned. The information that I learned through my research for this has incredibly strengthened my faith, and totally blown me away, so I wanted to share it here for you to be encouraged. 

And once again, I'll give a warning; it's pretty heavy, and seems a lot like school (probably because it is,) but I think it's worth the read.

The God Necessity?

By Robyn Hearn

As one looks at the universe and the culture around them, it is rather intuitive to have questions about it. Indeed, this is the foundation of studies not only in science, but also in logic and philosophy. It seems that there are a few fundamental questions that everyone asks at some point; these are the questions of the beginning of the universe, the questions of the beginning of life, the questions of the foundation for moral and ethical laws and values, and these often lead to the question of the existence of a god or Supreme Being. While many disagree with the idea of bringing the theory of God into scientific studies, it seems inescapable; if nothing else, the time must be taken to at least out rule the necessity of a god. To find such answers it is required to look at evidence from a myriad of sources and areas of academia, and here the three areas of cosmology, DNA, and morality will be analyzed for either evidence of a god or evidence for the lack of need for a god. There are many different theories and answers to these questions, so as Richard Dawkins puts it, “By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”

While naturalist’s first claims were of an infinite universe that had simply always been, it has since been found that this cannot be true. In 1929 Edward Hubble announced a finding that has changed the whole view of the possibility of a finite universe. What Hubble found was “the Red Shift” in distant stars, a Doppler effect of light due to other galaxies traveling away from us. Since it is found that the universe is expanding today, and it was expanding in 1929, when taken along side other research and evidence, it is logical to suppose that the universe has always been expanding. This means that as scientist “go back in time”, a zero point to the universe or an infinitely hot, dense point is to be expected. This was enough to convince Albert Einstein who was quoted saying “I now see the necessity of a beginning” after viewing Hubble’s findings, yet scientist like Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle tried to find another explanation for the expanding universe, a theory without need for a beginning point, and this gave rise to the Steady State Theory. Such a theory can be disregarded though, due to Robert Wilson & Arno Penzias discovery in 1965 of “background radiation” that is strong evidence for an infinitely hot, dense point that was the universe at some time in the past. From this, it seems more than fair to acknowledge a definite beginning point to the universe, but what was the cause?

For this beginning point cause scientists look towards anthropic fine tuning evidence, the incredible balance of forces in our universe such as expansion rate, gravity, and strong & weak forces. Taeil A. Bai, in a paper published by Stanford University called “Accident or Design” on such evidence, claims the following:

There are three ways to interpret the fine-tuning of fundamental constants. First, they were fine-tuned by an omniscient God. Second, there exist a very large number of universes with different values of fundamental constants, and we are here because this universe happens to be suitable for the development of intelligent life. Third, there must be fundamental laws which would show that the fundamental constants, which seem to be independent, are actually interrelated and have their observed values by logical necessity.

It seems that the first theory, that of a god or intelligent creator, would be satisfactory as long as there actually is a god. This god would be capable of creating a universe, so he should be intelligent enough to create an inhabitable one. The second theory, the Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH,) seems to work, but there is no solid evidence yet found for it. No universes with disproportional constants have been found, but there’s a bigger problem here. Who or what is causing each new universe to be different? How is each new value chosen? There must be some sort of intelligence behind a “universe making machine,” which brings theories back to some sort of god or intelligent designer. The third option makes a lot of sense, but again, there is no solid evidence for such connections, and it begs the question, who made those constants and laws and what caused those relations between them?

In much the same way that the universe has a remarkable balance, a cell has remarkable amounts of information in its DNA, RNA, proteins, and even more parts. The most commonly accepted ideas about life on Earth come from Darwin’s evolutionary theories, but he even admitted himself to not having an answer for the origination of the very first form of life. It was not until the 1920/30s that a possible explanation that lined up with evolution and atheism was found, and this is the idea that through a chemical process, the early, raw gasses of the Earth were able to form amino acids which aligned into proteins. Ignoring the question of where those raw gases and amino acids came from, problems are still found in the possibility of the alignment of amino acids to produce functional proteins. The chances of this happening are so incredibly minute; it’s hard to believe that it simply arose though chance. Molecular biologist, Douglas Axe, spent some time researching how common functional proteins are among useless amino acid sequences (“Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds”) and he found this ratio to be 1:10⁷⁴ for a relatively small protein of 150 amino acids. Also, for two amino acids to link together a peptide bond must be produced, the chances of which are one in two for each bond, 2^-149 or approximately 10^-45. It has also been discovered that there are two forms, called optical isomers, of each amino acid, and only one isomer is functional in a protein which means, once again, a one in two chance for each amino acid, 2^-150 or 10^-45. This means that the chances of one small, functional protein arising are 1 in 10¹⁶⁴, and that’s just one protein! Some scientist claim, though, that it was not chance alone that caused these miraculous events, but rather that natural selection is a suitable explanation. This theory seems irrelevant to this discussion though, as natural selection would require preexisting life, and this is a discussion of the establishment of the first life. There are some scientists then, who look at such evidence and are lenient towards the need for an intelligent designer and creator. After all, whenever we find specified information we assume there to be intelligence behind it, so applying such logic here seems, well, logical.

When it comes to morality and ethics, there are two possibilities, either moral relativism, or moral objectivism. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaethical Moral Relativism can be defined as the belief that “The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.” (Chris Gowans, Sect. 2) Such beliefs, though, seem difficult to live out in not only an individual’s life, but also in the functionality of a nation or society as a whole. First off, how can any judicial system affectively operate under such presuppositions? If morality is relative then there is no definite wrong, thus no crime and no justifiable punishment for supposed criminals. One of philosopher’s main reasons for believing in moral relativism comes from the disagreements among different people about right and wrong, but this is pretty poor logic. If one person thinks that this paper is about dogs while another believes it to be full of everything you need to know about cats, does this mean that the essay ceases to exist or be concretely definable? As Socrates puts it, “A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” It appears then, that moral laws are objective, but this causes rise to some difficult questions, namely, where did such laws come from?

Well, if moral laws are objective, we once again have two choices as to the origin of those laws. Ethics and values either come from the natural or the supernatural. For atheists, the answer must be natural, and this gives rise to the theory of Evolutionary Ethics first introduced in 1871 by Charles Darwin in his book, The Descent of Man. Evolutionary Ethics claims that through natural selection, humans (and animals for that matter) develop ethical laws and moral values for the sole purpose of advancing their race, and such values come through chemical intuitions and instincts in the brain.

Is this human capacity a biological adaptation, having perhaps conferred a selective advantage on our [Homo sapiens] ancestors by enhancing social cohesion and cooperation? … If so, then it would be part of evolved human nature to employ moral judgment in governing human behavior (William FitzPatrick, sect. 1)

Such a system does not give intrinsic value to humans or to their relationships and actions other than for the purpose of reproduction and the continuation of the human race. Such a theory causes problems in the justice system, as a subjective moral standard does, because this would require saying that one person’s moral intuitions are more “right” than someone else’s which in itself is a contradiction to the theory, and starts to sound like moral relativism. Not only this, but we are unable to justly blame someone for their actions because it is simply a chemical reaction that told them to act a certain way which causes them to have no real responsibility for their actions. Objective reality simply does not work without freewill.

Another complication to the natural origin theory is that by saying that morals evolve through natural selection, one must acknowledge that something we consider today to be immoral could’ve once been moral.  “With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking.” (Chris Gowans, sect.2) It is important to note that when referring to societies, this not only accounts for different location on Earth, but also different times; a question of not just “where” but “when.” Following this line of logic, it could be said, then, that Hitler’s genocide, for example, at the time, was morally right even though we consider it today to be morally wrong. Many more problems surface as we live this out such as when we have more than one moral intuition or desire or when two people disagree about moral obligations. Thus, the only reasonable explanation for where our morals come from must be supernatural. There must be some sort of Supreme Being, above humans, who has written these morals in human’s hearts.

When all of the evidence discussed is taken into account, one must seriously consider the possibility of an omnipotent creator. Though such a hypothesis is not completely indisputable, it does seem like the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the universe, life, and morals. Proof of an expanding universe, the Red Shift, gives need for a cause to the universe, which anthropic fine-tuning suggests to be a god. The origination of the first life, a protein, also needs a cause as chance does not seem a good enough answer, but natural selection doesn’t work either because of its need for preexisting life. Moral objectivism is necessary as arguments for moral relativism crumble once deeper questions are asked, so humanity is once again looking for a cause which cannot be mere evolution because such an argument also crumbles under further investigation. The number one thing that this seems to prove is the need for continued research in such areas which will either provide further evidence for God or provide evidence that throws out such a notion, but most vitally, such advice as Albert Einstein’s must be followed, “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” 

 Works Cited

Axe, Douglas. “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2004. pubmed.gov. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum>

Bai, Taeil Albert. “Accident or Design.” 2012. <http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/design.pdf>

Does God Exist? Perf. Dr. Stephen Meyer. 2009. Focus on the Family. 2012. DVD.

"Expanding Universe." World Encyclopedia. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. 2012. <http://www.encyclopedia.com>

Fitzpatrick, William. “Morality and Evolutionary Biology.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/morality-biology/>

Gowans, Chris. “Moral Relativism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/moral-relativism/>

“How Genes Work.” Us National Library of Medicine. 2012. Genetics Home Reference. 2012. <http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/howgeneswork?show=all>

“Hoyle, Sir Fred.” The Columbian Encyclopedia. 2012. Encyclopedia.com. 2012. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Sir_Fred_Hoyle.aspx>

“Hubble’s Law.” The Columbian Encyclopedia. 2012. Encyclopedia.com. 2012. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hubbles_law.aspx>

Joyce, Richard. "Moral Anti-Realism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/moral-anti-realism/>

Nobel, David A. Understanding the Times. Summit. Manitou Springs. 2006. Print.

Dr. Parker, Gary. “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein.” Answers in Genesis. 1994. 2012. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/the-origin-of-life>

Schroeder, Doris. “Evolutionary Ethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. 2012. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/#H4>

“Steady-State Theory.” World Encyclopedia. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. 2012. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/steady-state_theory.aspx>