This article was adapted from an exchange
of correspondence with an atheist friend.

The ideas and information discussed in this article
are explored in greater depth in my book
Answers to Satisfy the Soul.

Looking at the laws and structure of the universe, astronomer Alan Sandage said, “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

It’s true. God is a mystery—and God is the explanation.

In my book Answers to Satisfy the Soul, I lay out the amazing scientific evidence for the reality of God, the immortality of the human soul, the power of prayer, and more. It’s not a book of opinions, but of hard facts and reliable evidence. In those chapters, I set forth the case and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

But I won’t hesitate to state my own personal certainty on the matter: I’m convinced that the existence of God has been conclusively proven, that the reality of God is a scientific fact.

The evidence for God involves a series of astoundingly unlikely coincidences in the laws and structure of the universe that make it possible for life to exist. The apparent purposefulness and fine-tuned design of the cosmos is so strikingly obvious that it demands explanation, whatever that explanation might be. The odds of such a fine-tuned life-producing machine as our universe arising by sheer random chance are so incredibly remote (literally one chance in trillions upon trillions), that there is clearly a deliberate and purposeful force at work in the structure of the cosmos.

Roger Penrose is Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, and author of The Emperor’s New Mind. Penrose once calculated the odds that a life-giving universe could have arisen out of all possible random outcomes of the Big Bang. He concluded that the likelihood that the Big Bang should have been produced our life-giving universe was on the order of one chance in 10^10^123 (ten to the tenth to the one-hundred twenty-third power).

In mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 (ten to the fiftieth power) is considered "probability zero," a statistical impossibility. Penrose's number is over a trillion times more remote than that. In short, the Big Bang was so delicately fine-tuned that it is a statistical miracle. Penrose described his calculation this way:

"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed."

Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind
(NY: Oxford University Press, 1989), p.326.

Leading astronomers and physicists agree that the evidence for a fine-tuned, deliberately designed universe is shocking and demands explanation. They don't all believe that the explanation is God, but they do agree that the fine-tuned fit-for-life universe could hardly have arisen by sheer random chance. Here's a sampling of their statements:

In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking wrote, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the physical constants of the universe] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. . . . [I]t seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life."

Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg wrote in "Life in the Quantum Universe" (Scientific American, October 1994): "These mysteries are heightened when we reflect how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely."

Dr. Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University, South Australia: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly."

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle: "I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed."

John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics, the man who gave "black holes" their name: "The necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design."

John Maynard Smith, leading theorist in evolutionary biology, Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex; and Eors Szathmary, Institute for Advanced Study, Budapest, writing in Nature, (November 14, 1996): "It turns out that the physical constants have just the values required to ensure that the Universe contains stars with planets capable of supporting intelligent life. . . . . The simplest interpretation is that the Universe was designed by a creator who intended that intelligent life should evolve. This interpretation lies outside science."

If you want to read more about the scientific evidence for the reality of God, you can find a concise, easy-to-read, non-technical explanation in my book Answers to Satisfy the Soul. You will find a more extensive discussion of the evidence in the following books:

God and the New Physics by Paul Davies
The Mind of God by Paul Davies
Cosmic Coincidences by John Gribbin and Martin Rees
God: The Evidence by Patrick Glynn
The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross
Universes by John Leslie

My belief in the reality of a Cosmic Creator is based on rational inquiry and scientific evidence. But I also believe in God as a personal friend, someone I relate to day by day. The basis for my personal relationship with God is not scientific. It’s experiential.

I'm convinced that it’s important to build a worldview on the basis of both reason and intuition, rational evidence and personal experience. If I only had objective, scientific evidence to go on, I would believe in the existence of God, but would have no personal sense of God's reality and involvement in my life. And if I only had subjective experience to go on, I might continually wonder if my subjective experience wasn't merely a psychological phenomenon. But because I have both objective and subjective evidence of the reality of God, I am able to fine-tune my understanding of truth.

The person who relies only on logic and reason is crippled in his or her approach to truth; so is the person who relies only on emotion and personal experience. So I approach truth both rationally and experientially, both objectively and subjectively, both logically and intuitively.

God can be perceived through rational inquiry, but God must also be received experientially and subjectively. So I approach God both with my rational mind (what the ancient Greeks called psyche) and my trans-rational spirit (or pneuma). The reason God is the core certainty of my life is because I approach God in this integrated way.

I agree with St. Augustine: "If you think you understand, then it isn't God." God can be deduced from logical data, but God cannot be reduced to logical data. For me, it is not enough to simply know about God. Science can tell you about God, about the mind and purposes of the Cosmic Creator. But science alone cannot lead you into a personal experience with the Cosmic Creator. In my own mind and soul, I know that I know God. I experience God's presence on a daily basis. I talk to God and I listen to God. I don't hear an audible voice, but I hear God speak.

Someone once said to me, "I know you believe there’s a scientific basis for believing in the existence of God. But you certainly don’t believe that there’s any validity to Christianity, do you? I mean, you certainly don’t subscribe to such ideas as a literal virgin birth or the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, do you?"

In fact, I do. The resurrection, as an historical event, is very well evidenced. I have done extensive personal research into the subject, much of which I used in How to Be Like Jesus, a book I co-wrote with my friend Pat Williams, senior vice president of the Orlando Magic. There are other excellent books on the subject, such as The Case for Christ by journalist Lee Strobel.

Rational inquiry is a large part of my belief structure. So is my own personal experience. I believe in the reality of the Cosmic Creator and the miracle of a fine-tuned universe. I believe that the God who fine-tuned the process of generating carbon atoms in the hearts of stars also cares about the thoughts I think and the stories I write. I believe in Jesus of Nazareth, a friend I talk to every day, but have never seen. I believe he was dead and is alive today.

And the virgin birth? Well, if I believe in other miracles, such as the creation event and the resurrection, then why draw the line at the virgin birth? A God who can fine-tune the forces of the Big Bang shouldn't have too much trouble fine-tuning the chromosomes in the unfertilized ovum of a Jewish virgin.

Scottish rationalist David Hume defined a miracle as "a violation of the laws of nature." To him, a miracle was an offense, a violation of reason. As C. S. Lewis wrote in Miracles, "It is petty and capricious tyrants who break their own laws; good and wise kings obey them. Only an incompetent workman will produce work which needs to be interfered with." I agree. So, to me, a miracle is not a violation of nature. It is a meaningful intervention within the laws of nature—an intervention that reveals God's own nature.

It is not irrational or unscientific to believe in God and in miracles. In fact, once you understand how delicately fine-tuned the laws and structure of the universe are, you realize that it is irrational and unscientific not to believe in God and in miracles.

Near the end of her nonfiction book Walking on Water, novelist Madeleine L'Engle (author of A Wrinkle in Time) makes an observation that states my own view perfectly:

During the question-and-answer period after a talk, a college student rose in the audience and commented with some surprise, “You don't seem to feel any conflict between science and religion.”

I tried to explain. Of course not. Why should there be a conflict? All that the new discoveries of science can do is to enlarge our knowledge of the magnitude and glory of God's creation. [. . .]

Neither our knowledge of God and his purposes for his creation, nor the discoveries of science are static. I must admit that the scientists are often easier for me to understand than the theologians, for many theologians say, “These are the final answers.” Whereas the scientists—correction: the best of them—say, “This is how it appears now. If further evidence is to the contrary, we will see where it leads us.”

And of course I'm being unfair to the theologians. The best of them, too, are open to this uncertainty, which is closer to the truth which will set us free than any closed system.

Madeleine L'Engle, Walking On Water: Reflections on Faith and Art
(New York: North Point Press, 1980), pp. 190-191.

God's reality gives thematic focus to my life. The story of my life makes sense because God exists. All the parts of my life fit together in a meaningful way because of God.

Even my identity as a writer is intimately connected to the reality of God. I know that I am called by God to write. I am a servant of the word—and of the Word. I am, as J. R. R. Tolkien says in his essay "On Fairy-Stories," a "sub-creator." In other words, I am a lesser co-creator with God; when I create, I work in partnership with the Creator of the cosmos. I continually draw upon God for inspiration, ideas, and enthusiasm to accomplish my work (enthusiasm, after all, comes from the Greek word entheos, meaning "filled with God").

A storyteller friend of Madeleine L'Engle once told her, "Jesus was not a theologian. He was God who told stories." How true. That's the Jesus I know. Jesus is my brother, my friend, my master, my mentor, my exemplar—the God who still tells stories through me, and who daily teaches me my craft and calling as a storyteller.

That’s not merely what I believe. That’s what I know to be true.

 

To order Answers to Satisfy the Soul, call the publisher, Quill Driver Books:
1-800-497-4909
You can also obtain the book from your local bookstore
or online through Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com.

 

Back to Denneybooks.com