Stay Tuned

In these terrible times of COVID-19, most people are turning to God--some for the first time. However, certain atheists are taking this state of affairs to "prove" there is no God. I find it highly ironic because the existence of God can be known by human reason alone, apart from any Divine Revelation. We may never know the reason God does or permits something; we may not know His ways of doing things ("For My thoughts are not thy thoughts, neither are thy ways My ways,"declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than thy ways and My thoughts than Thy thoughts."--Isaiah 55:8-9); but all human beings with the use of reason can know that He does indeed exist.

The Vatican Council of 1870, in its Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, decrees:

The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; "for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" [ Rom 1:20]...

Canon I. If anyone says that the one, true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine).

Why then, are there atheists? A few preliminary remarks need to be made. Atheism is the denial of God's reality. Atheism may be subdivided into theoretical and practical. Theoretical atheism is based on judgments of the intellect. Practical atheism is a term for those who deny God in the practical order. They may give God lip service, but in the practical order, they never really give Him any consideration and behave as if He didn't exist. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven will enter." (St. Matthew 7:21).

Absolute and invincible ignorance of the existence of God, in principle, cannot be conceded because it is impossible for human reason not to ascend from the experience of the of the external world to the cause of it. The Vatican Council of 1870 makes this clear. However, since the existence of God is not immediately evident, people can fail to see the force of the arguments advanced to prove it and can, consequently, accept some contrary argument, forming a false conviction. A theoretical atheist is always guilty, at least initially, for a lack of prudence, of careful consideration, and of more accurate and dispassionate investigation. An atheist really convinced and in perfect good faith is an absurd and untenable hypothesis. (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology [1957], pg. 24; the preliminary discussion of atheism was culled and condensed from this work).

In my personal experience, most atheists have reached their conclusion for the non-existence of God based on reasons that do not arise from the intellect, but from emotion. The most common examples:

• Medical causes. People who suffer from manic depressive states, or who are on certain types of medications, can become depressed and experience doubts because they are incapable of clear thinking. Proper medication and treatment can relieve such moods--and with it the doubt or denial over God's existence.
• Anger over life's circumstances. Frequently, people will turn on God after the death of a loved one, loss of a job, or onset of a medical condition. In these days, the COVID-19 pandemic, "Why did God allow this to happen?" We must remember that God permits things to happen for our greater good, even if we can't see it. We follow in the footsteps of a Suffering Savior. 
• Judging by feelings. This is a direct result of the Modernists, who expect us to feel warm and fuzzy, because religion (according to them) is emotive. The so-called "Charismatic Movement" thrives on making faith "an experience." When someone does not (or no longer) "feels close to God," they think He's not there. 
• The World. Peer-pressure from those who think you're a "religious nut," will often make people want to give up the Faith to fit in. The "New Atheists" attack religious people as "superstitious" and "dangerous," while rock and pop music, TV, and movies attack religion and religious people as "not being with it." Hypocrites in the Church who don't live the Faith will exacerbate the problem. 

Finally, some people want to deny God's existence because that gives them an excuse to lead a sinful life and quell their conscience. They make up intellectual "problems" to mask their evil desires. I find this to be most especially true regarding those who wish to sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. 

The remainder of this post will be dedicated to examining the teleological argument. Championed as one of The Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God by the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, I will give a condensed and nuanced version. I have drawn not only upon the works of Aquinas, Principles and Problems of Philosophy [1944] by theologian Ryan, but also modern non-Catholic thinkers such as Swinburne, Spitzer, Craig, Davies, etc. Why would I include heretics? To prove the Church correct in Her judgement that all human beings, using the light of human reason apart from Revelation and outside the Church, can discern the truth that God exists. Did not even Aquinas himself use the principles of pagan philosopher Aristotle in the service of the One True Church? Moreover, it proves that advances in science since the 13th century, far from "disproving God," have only added more credibility to the famous Five Ways.

I have tried to avoid technical language as much as possible to produce what (I hope) will be a readable and understandable condensed version of the teleological argument for the existence of God. 

A Universe Designed By God

Teleological refers to the evidence of design and purpose in the material world. Since circa 1970, astronomers have been stunned by the discovery of how complex and delicate a balance of initial conditions must be present to permit the existence of intelligent life anywhere at all in the universe. This has been referred to as the "fine-tuning" of the universe. Many modern theists, such as Dr. William Dembski, have sought to concentrate on biological systems here on Earth, in what is commonly called "Intelligent Design Theory." However, the cutting edge of the contemporary teleological argument involves the fine-tuning of the cosmos.

There are two kinds of fine-tuning; the first involves the constants of nature, and the second involves certain arbitrary physical quantities. Both will be examined in turn.

1. Constants of nature. What is a constant? When the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain symbols that stand for unchanging quantities, like the force of gravity, and the electromagnetic force, to give but two examples. These unchanging quantities are called constants. The values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature; they are independent of them. You could have the same laws of nature with different values leading to a very different kind of universe from what we have now.

2. Arbitrary physical quantities. In addition to the constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate. Since the quantities are arbitrary, they're also not determined by the laws of nature. One such example is the amount of thermodynamic disorder (called entropy) there was at the beginning of the universe. It's an initial condition, and had that quantity been different, the universe would be quite different as well. 

Keeping these constants in mind, consider the following: 

The force of gravity is so finely tuned that an alteration of its value by even one part out of 10 to the fiftieth power (that's a 1 followed by 50 zeroes!) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Likewise, a change in the value of the so-called cosmological constant, which drives the acceleration of the universe's expansion, by as little as one part in 10 to the one hundred twentieth power (1 followed by 120 zeroes) would also have prohibited life in the universe. 

To be clear, by "life" It is meant organisms that can take in sustenance, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to its environment, and reproduce. Anything that can fulfill these functions counts as life, and in order for life (as just defined) to exist, requires the constants and quantities of the universe to be unbelievably fine-tuned, otherwise there could be no life anywhere.

Three Possibilities: Necessity, Chance, or Design

How do we account for such fine-tuning? There are only three possibilities: it was by physical necessity; it was by chance; or it was designed that way.

1. Necessity. This would require the belief that there could not be a non-life permitting universe, because the constants had to be the way they are now. This is absurd to suggest since the constants are not determined by the laws of nature. No philosopher or scientist has come up with a logical reason that the constants were required to be the way they are, and we have every indication they could have been otherwise.  There is no proof of fine-tuning by necessity. 

2. Chance. As explained above, the odds of a life permitting universe are incomprehensibly improbable. Atheists who say we are here by sheer luck will make an analogy to a lottery. The odds of winning are 10 million to one, but somebody has to win. Therefore, we are the lucky "lottery winners" and the prize is a life-permitting universe! The analogy is inapposite. The correct analogy is a lottery in which there are ten billion ping-pong balls in a container. All are white except for one that is orange. If a white ping-pong ball comes down the chute, you will be executed. If the orange one rolls out, your life will be spared.

The odds of any particular ball getting picked over all the others is fantastically improbable. This is the false analogy of the atheists because the theist is not trying to explain why this particular ball was picked. The relevant point is that whichever ball rolls down the chute, it is overwhelmingly more probable to be white rather than orange. Getting the orange ball is no more improbable than getting any particular ball; but it remains incomprehensibly more probable the ball will be white and not orange. So if the orange ball did come out, people would assume the lottery was rigged by someone to save your life, and it was not chance.

In the correct analogy, the concern is not why you got the particular ball, but why, against overwhelming odds, there was a "life-permitting ball." The question is not addressed by saying, "Well, some ball had to be picked." The atheist will protest, "But it's not mathematically impossible." Ok, let's look at some similar mathematical possibilities: It is mathematically possible that randomly hitting keys on a keyboard could produce Shakespeare's play Macbeth. It's mathematically possible that wind and rain erosion could produce the faces of four presidents on the side of Mount Rushmore. If you saw a copy of Macbeth, would you believe it was randomly typed or produced by a great intellect? Which is the more probable? If you saw Mount Rushmore, would you believe the faces were the random effects of erosion, or would you think someone designed and made those faces? 

All indications rule out chance in favor of...

3. Design. The universe was designed for life by an immaterial Mind of Infinite Power, Whom we call God.

Atheist objection: If God designed the universe, then who designed God? The question is irrelevant. Why? Suppose someone is very sick and losing weight rapidly. After a battery of tests, they discover a parasite in the person's intestines. The doctors remove the parasite, and the sick person stops losing weight and makes a complete recovery. It is a fact that the explanation of the illness was a parasite, even if the person and his doctors have no idea how he got it or from whence it came. You don't need an "explanation of the explanation." There is further proof of God as the "Uncaused Cause," which would be too long to explain in this post. 

Conclusion

The proofs are there for all to see that God exists. He is, as the Vatican Council of 1870 tells us, "Creator and Lord." Of course, there are things that unaided human reason cannot tell us about God, e.g., that He exists as a Trinity of Three Divine Persons, but only One True God. For those truths we need Divine Revelation. The Vatican II sect has reduced belief in God to emotion.  Modernism denies the supernatural as an object of certain knowledge. The Modernists who challenge all rational proof of the existence of God as the First Cause of everything in existence, both material and spiritual, fall victims to a "scientific agnosticism." For these, God is something which comes forth from man's subconscious. Religion is therefore essentially about feelings, specifically what makes you feel good; if Christianity, or any other religion, is what makes you feel good and more in touch with the Divine, then it is true for you. Religion has never consisted of creeds or objective truth but of feelings. This doctrine is known as vital immanence. Religion is a feeling or sentiment that comes from a subconscious need for the Divine.

This is why the Novus Bogus "mass" has people shaking hands, hugging and kissing at the "sign of peace," and singing happy, profane songs while skipping up dressed immodestly and like slobs to get the cracker and wine. It's all about being happy and feeling good. The Vatican II sect schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries no longer teach the Five Ways, and eschew the proofs of God's existence. And why shouldn't they? Modernism leads ultimately to atheism, which according to Bergoglio, isn't a bad thing. "Atheists can go to Heaven," as he told us. Indeed, the number of atheists has risen dramatically since the Vatican II sect began. The Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (required to be taken by all clergy, and abolished by Montini--Paul VI--in 1964) had as its very first Truth to be affirmed that, "I profess that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known and thus can also be demonstrated by the natural light of reason "by the things that are made" [cf. Rom. 1:20], that is, by the visible works of creation, as the cause by the effects."

It is therefore with reason that the Bible tells us, "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God..." Psalm 13:1.