Reason to believe

Fundamentals

0
6

I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. I mean, look around you: everywhere in the entire universe there are signs of design, elements fitting together perfectly, a mathematically exact set-up, from the cosmos to the DNA strand. For centuries, mathematicians and scientists and artists, all have pointed to what they call the Golden Ratio, the incredibly constant ratio which exists in nature, in cosmology, anatomy, everywhere you look. Even the most determined atheists have to use words like “design” when they talk about the world around us, within us, and above us. “Mother Nature”, they say, “has designed this and that to work this way”. Intelligent people have devoted their lives and careers to explaining how everything became so wonderfully designed without an actual designer (assuming they don’t believe in an actual Mother Nature, that is).

There is simply too much evidence of a pattern, a design, in what I have to call creation; so why is there such a resistance to the fact? Very strange theories have been put forward by very otherwise intelligent people to explain how it all started, how it got to where it is now, and where it’s going in the future. Some of these theories are just too unbelievable to take seriously. The universe, some say, just started. One second there was nothing there, the next second, poof! Except that seconds couldn’t exist before time, etc., so that’s another issue. Was that first “something” alive, organic, inorganic? Why did it suddenly come into being all on its own? I think it takes far, far more faith to believe that, than to believe in a Creator. Honestly.

The thing is, creation by a Creator fits the facts far better than any alternative. Otherwise, you have to believe in something out of nothing, without cause or reason. Then you have to believe that everything that exists today came from that very first popping into existence (unless you believe it happened over and over again, which just adds to the conundrum). Then, in another amazing once-in-a-trillion-billion event, somewhere on the planet (once the planet had actually formed, of course) a single cell of life appeared somehow. Of course, at some point there had to be another identical appearance of life, and somehow those two random and unbelievably rare cells, or whatever they were, had to meet up and procreate others of their kind. These, then, having found each other in the vast distances of the universe, had to survive long enough to produce future generations.

This is, perhaps, a somewhat simplistic account of the theory, but, even in its simple state (or perhaps because of its simple state), it is very hard to believe. I mean, even looking at the human race today, can we honestly think we were the “fittest to survive”, naked, without technology or strength to overcome the natural predators and environment of the planet. This takes far more faith than I can muster, I admit.

But, it may be said, this is what science tells us actually happened. Is it, really? I am a believer in science, as well as God. I resent those who abuse science by making it seem to claim more than it does. Assumptions are not science. Neither are theories that are yet unproven and untested, not to mention those theories that, by their nature, cannot be tested and proved. No matter if the universe is hundreds of thousands, or hundreds of billions years old, most of what we base our ideas on in relation to the natural world come from scientific observations and statistics that come from no more than a moment in that long story. We are letting the philosophies of recent decades influence the work we do in observing and recording what we see. This is not clever, nor is it good science.

Observation can equally tell us that there is a definite pattern to the universe, that things happen rather too smoothly for it to be just a random collection of accidental and meaningless phenomena. It is also obvious that there is something wrong also, especially in the humans of Earth. They do not do what is in their best interests: they are slowly killing the very world upon which they depend, all in the name of greed, selfishness and narrow sectional prejudices. And yet, there is something else, something inside each of us that knows that this is wrong. There is more to us than just a collection of physical and electrical impulses: we have a soul. We have the facility to recognise and appreciate beauty: in nature, in art, in music, in physical form. We know that there is good and evil in the world, and we can generally tell the difference. There is more to you and I than meets the eye.

This, whatever it is, is beyond the remit of science, because it cannot be measured, it cannot be recreated in a lab. But that does not mean it does not exist. Science cannot speak to what is outside its proper sphere of activity: but that does not mean that it is not real.

I am not talking about religion here: I’m simply pointing out certain facts and experiences which the majority of human kind has witnessed and understood to be true for as long as we have been. That kind of evidence and the testimony of what is around us in the universe, makes faith easy and rational. Denying it is neither.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here