Apologetics: Arguments for the Existence of God

Introduction: Looking for Overlap

Before I begin to reviewing the arguments for the existence of God, I wanted to go back and touch on one more practical tip. I think it will be immensely helpful regardless of the objection you’re addressing. It beings with a simple observation. All of us need to have both biblical and cultural literacy. That dichotomy captures nearly all of our human experience. We can lump a lot of the ideas we come across everyday into either of those two categories, either God’s thoughts or human thought.

Dr. Jerram Barrs, who teaches apologetics at Covenant Theological Seminary, uses a similar dichotomy in his course to describe the human condition. One of the best practical take-aways from his course uses a venn diagram to help us as evangelizers and defenders of the faith identify with nonChristians. Identifying with, sympathizing with, and having compassion for others is, after all, half of what I was getting at with my earlier talk on approaches (the other half being the need to maintain our identity in Christ). 

Professor Barrs asks us to think of the the believer and the unbeliever as being in the same basic situation. Regardless of which group you are a part, you can’t help but be steeped in the two worlds. Both groups live in two worlds, the earthly world of our culture and the world of God’s truth. The believer is obligated and striving not to be conformed to the earthly world. We’re in the earthly world of culture but trying not to be of it. The unbeliever is oblivious about the world of God’s truth, yet, because of things like common grace, general revelation, and the divine image, still knows some of God’s truth. They’re of the earthly world of culture but still committed somewhere to God’s decrees.

A successful means of evangelizing and defending the faith is identifying those places in the unbeliever’s life where they are invested in God’s truth and cling to it tightly. You can start a conversation by naming that belief and showing how it’s incongruous with the other world of culture they’re steeped in.

So be mindful of where you agree with the nonChristian. Those are the grounds on which you’ll be able to erect the most powerful arguments to others. It should also help you pick among the various defenses from which we can choose on any given topic. It should help you, for instance, to know which argument for the existence of God to lead with.

Preface: Arguing from common ground

Most of the remainder of our course will be defensive in nature. We will be dispatching objections to the Christian faith. In this lecture, though, we’ll be discussing the the principal offensive apologetic. We’ll be assuming the burden of proof in arguing for the existence of God in a few different ways. Although we mentioned last week it’s perfectly advisable to turn the tables and ask others why they don’t believe in God, we need to prepare ourselves for the inevitability of the table being turned once more. We will be asked to explain our rationale for belief.

One of the first reasons many Christians would offer is that we’ve in some way met God, not necessarily face to face but in the words he left behind and in the spirit that still moves and acts and dwells among us. Many of us know that God exists from our experience of Him. Indeed, special revelation in the person of Jesus Christ is the ultimate evidence of God. We have clear, intimate proof in the form of a sense of being called by God, of being loved by him, of being forgiven by him on account of his Son, of spiritually partaking of Christ’s body and blood in communion, of having our silent prayers heard by an omniscient being that is our Maker. Perhaps you’ve been blessed to have this assurance since you were quite young. These interior experiences aren’t to be discounted, but they aren’t universally relatable.  

Others, those people who have not yet shared in those experiences with us, begin from more skeptical ground. We can imagine, putting ourselves in their shoes, how those reasons could be unconvincing. If they’ve not had any of the subjective experiences you referenced, they may ask you for further justification. While we pray that the Holy Spirit would make his reality and presence felt in the souls of atheists and agnostics, we are obligated to prepare a defense of our joy in knowing the Lord. In addition to drawing on religious experience which nonChristians have not had, we seek in these arguments to speak from experiences and assumptions that are basic to all humanity.

Because of that commitment to shared beliefs, it’s important to note at the outset that these arguments, which tend to be more philosophical and less directly grounded in special revelation and Scripture, stop short of establishing the God of Bible’s existence. Nor do these arguments attempt to conclude Jesus is the Son of God. It’s important to remember there is a profound chasm between theism and Christian theism. We should understand that our work is not done even if we persuade someone of the validity of these arguments. We will need to continue along side the person and evangelize. The historicity of the Resurrection and the reliability of the Scriptures, which we will cover later, are intended to draw a person nearer to Christ specifically may build upon these more general foundations.

The various arguments form the existence of God for the cornerstone of what’s referred to as traditional or classical apologetics. That approach assumes at the outset of debate that the theist, atheist, and agnostic can find common ground from which to proceed.  It assumes all parties are able to recognize and agree on the truth value of certain statements. As a reminder, we find clear Scriptural support for this traditional approach in Psalm 19:1, (“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”) and Romans 1:19-21 (“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.”). Both of these passages make it clear that limited evidence of God is universally accessible, even while fuller knowledge of Him is possible only through the aid of faith.

We’ll cover three arguments in the remainder of our class. To make use of our venn diagram, the first two arguments you see listed in your outline will be more germane to scientifically-minded people, people who have a passion for the natural world. The last kind of argument will be more germane to humanists, people who have a passion for other people. You can rely upon your knowledge of the specific person to inform you as to which sort of argument you should lead with. That does not mean you should stop there or refrain from sharing your intimate awareness of God, just that you’ll be building on firmer ground if you start with arguments that resonate.

The arguments we’ll be discussing today share a common form. Each begins with uncontroversial premises, statements that should be considered obvious or true by anyone participating in rational discussion. From those premises, each proceeds carefully and logically with the addition of other widely acceptable propositions towards the conclusion that God exists. The following arguments are probabilistic, meaning they establish the great likelihood of the conclusion’s truth. Provided a person grants the premises, you will make an effective argument. That person should believe the conclusion. Should, however, falls well short of must or will.

For those of you who are who are logically inclined, most of these conclusions are not deductively certain. Our apologetic goal is not to reach risk-free certainty. We aren’t going to pretend that being a devout Christian is rationally compulsory. As Michael J. Murray stated in his essay, “Reason for Hope In the Postmodern World,” “There are no arguments for the truth of Christianity which force the atheist or non-Christian to their intellectual knees.” Nor should that even be our aim. We are not out to score a knockout blow for the rationality of Christianity but to win men and women for Christ. To do so would take more than reasoning. It requires love, trust, and in the end, the grace of God.

I will be reviewing many positive arguments, so you’ll likely leave this lecture with your head spinning. That’s intentional on my part. If and when you engage in apologetic discussions, I’d advise you do the same if possible. Because any belief if rationally avoidable, meaning you can deny a conclusion you should believe by altering your preexisting beliefs, a determined skeptic will always find a reason to continue disbelieving. The goal in presenting so many arguments in favor of God’s existence is to prompt the skeptic to compare his or her system of beliefs with Christianity. We strive to make the case that a belief in God makes more sense of our universe than the godless alternatives. After facing the fully array of positive arguments, skeptics will have to make so many exceptions and hedges, they’ll will be left considering the strength of their contorted state against the elegant simplicity of the theist’s position. This is the edge or precipice to faith we described as our apologetic goal. We pray that God intervenes at that point.

Argument Types

Cosmological - The root of cosmological is cosmos, which is Greek for world or order.  So the cosmological argument makes a claim about the world, specifically the world’s origins. It’s usually the first brought up in positive apologetics because it is so basic. The argument is born out of a a very simple, fundamentally human question that all of us have pondered. Why is there something rather than nothing?

If we look around us, everything we see is classified by philosophers as a contingent being. That means, simply, that its existence depends upon a previously existing being. If we look at a given object, we can always ask why is it here. We will trace it back to a previously existing contingent being. This pen is here because I brought it here from my house. It made its way into my house because I bought it from the store. I bought it from the store because it was shipped there from the pen factory. And on and on it goes, past machines and plastic injection molds and raw materials extracted the soil and fossils. Its origins go back a great distance in the past. Eventually our inquiries take us to the earth itself. We can ask the same thing of our earth. It is, afterall, another contingent being. Again, the answers to our questions recede further and further back into the distance past. We can ask the same thing of our universe and recede far back into the cosmically distant past. But we inevitably run aground on a mystifying question: why is the universe here?

In order to stop this infinite regression to previously existing contingent beings, we have a few options. First, we could say the universe is itself a different kind of being philosophers call a necessary being. A necessary being is a kind of being that has always existed, which is to say it is eternal. Second, we could say the universe is a one of a kind being that is contingent but somehow doesn’t depend on another being for it’s existence. Or third, we could say that there is a necessary being separate from the universe that created the universe, a being with the omnipotence required to create all things and the eternality to create time itself. This necessary being theists call God.

Of those three options, the theistic belief is the only one that doesn’t immediately ensnare us in a tricky situation. Briefly put, the eternality of the universe is not supported by the dominant scientific cosmology known as the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a scientific theory that holds the universe explosively began at a very specific time in the far, far distance past. Now, a skeptic could be content dismissing the Big Bang. The problem, however, is what happens when you bring that premise to its logical conclusion. The Big Bang is such a cornerstone of natural science and enjoys such explanatory power it would be inconsistent for that same skeptic to invest any authority in other natural scientific truth claims. Most skeptics you’ll meet will be uneasy about that fate.

Alternatively, the second option that the universe is the only contingent being that doesn’t need another contingent being for its own existence is nonsensical. It’s absurd to believe that a being that has not always existed can begin on its own. The skeptic is free to be nonsensical, but you’re not likely to run into many people who are honestly, committedly nonsensical. Should you find such a person, you may want to ask him or her what’s so terrible about the Christianity and the aspects of its doctrines that transcend reason.

With the first two alternatives suffering from obvious weaknesses, the third alternative, the one the supports theism is left. We then have our first of many good reasons for thinking God, a necessary being, exists.

Teleological - The Greek root of teleological is telos, which basically means an end. A telos is the final outcome for which a thing is aimed to meet. The teleological argument, also sometimes called the argument from design, makes a claim about purposes. Like the cosmological argument, it also begins by wondering about the universe. It asks a more specific question, though. Instead of wondering why is there something rather than nothing, it looks around and asks why is there just this universe instead of another?

Thomas Aquinas is frequently credited with being the first to formulate the teleological argument. His massive 13th century tome, the Summa Theologica, includes an argument from design as its fifth argument in favor of God’s existence. There have been many versions since then, some falling out of favor and some still dominating the field.

The argument here, which has been popularized in the last few decades by what has been dubbed the intelligent design movement, is an inductive kind of argument known as argument from analogy. Inductive, as I mentioned earlier, means probabilistic. It says, when two things are sufficiently alike in relevant ways, it is rational to ascribe to the one thing attributes that are known to be true of the other thing. More simply stated, like effects have like causes. We all know and use this type of argument whenever we say, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”

There are many different versions of the teleological argument. We’ll cover an exemplary one here, but know that you can research and find others that rely upon other analogical reasoning.

In the teleological argument, the two things that are said to be alike are human artifacts, things people make, and the universe and all the natural objects it contains, things like clouds, rocks, and electrons. Human artifacts are adjusted to specific ends by our intelligence. We invent them to help us in our tasks, for instance. If we observe natural objects, we find they are likewise adjusted to specific ends. They act uniformly, in expected ways, to preserve itself and achieve stasis. Therefore, natural objects must be adjusted by an intelligent agent capable of creating the sum of natural objects we call the universe. That intelligent agent fits within our conception of God.

Objection: the world is not like a human artifact. Many atheists and agnostics, most concisely the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, have rebutted this argument by objecting to the premise that the world and artifacts are similar or similar enough to support the teleological argument’s conclusion. The world, or to extrapolate further, the universe is so wildly unlike anything humans have ever produced that it’s impossible to claim that judgment on a small part of it suffices to establish a strong enough similarity between the world at large and say, a house that humans designed and built. When we weaken the analogy, we weaken the conclusions from the argument.

Reply: the intricacy of the world is unlike any given natural object. We could distance ourselves from the analogy claims between the world and human artifacts while still drawing conclusions from the evident purposefulness of the natural universe. If we were to take the widest view of the world as humanly possible, the fact that it functions to sustain life is evidence against brute force as its cause. Each natural object is a part of a natural system, ecosystems, weather systems, geological systems, etc. The natural systems, chemical, physical, and biological are so complex and complexly interwoven and yet functioning regularly and orderly, they bear no resemblance to the products of any inanimate object on its own.

Objection: the intricacy of the world can be explained by natural processes over a long, long amount of time. If the functionality of the universe were presumed to be quickly established, such as within the lifespan of a human, then it would be reasonable to believe a designer would be necessary to make the universe thus. However, incremental change over durations of millions of human life-spans could account for the complexity we see.

Here you can see we’re quickly running into evolutionary science territory, which I cannot thoroughly unpack here. Instead, let me simply retort here that it’s impossible for science to explain the purposive nature of material processes over long, long amounts of time without assuming that nature has some sort of goal. It is, however, impossible to suggest a goal--even a far distant one--without recourse to a being capable of assigning a goal. Arrows don’t fly towards targets on their own. They’re aimed by an archer. That goes to show purposiveness is not brute or innate. Blind, formative power cannot establish its own ends.

To quickly review, imagine you found a deck of cards arranged by suit in numerical order on the sidewalk, it’s very arranging demands an explanation. It would be absurd to hypothesize these were so organized at random. Likewise, the beauty, order, and structure of the universe as a whole and its parts demands an explanation. Could such a thing just happen without design and intention, as the atheist contends, or does it make more sense that an intelligent, willful being created the universe?

We don’t have the time to properly investigate them here, but I should make you aware of more recent developments in the arguments from design that assert the greater explanatory power lies in theistic rather than atheistic cosmologies. To briefly touch on one such account, the intricacy of biological systems like the inner workings of the cell are such that it is highly improbably that all such necessary systems could arise at random concurrently. If you’ve ever heard of the term “irreducible complexity,” this is where that term frequently arises. The idea is that you cannot subtract a single component of a system without the system breaking down. It stretches credulity to suggest that each component of the system arose slowly over a long period of time when the system  itself would only be of use at the end of the development when each of the components are developed enough to contribute their essential portion of the task.  Prior to that point, the inadequacy of any contributing part renders the overall system useless, which would make it superfluous from a natural selection perspective. That, however, is what the alternative to divine invention is committed to.

We still have to establish at this point that a designer did act rather than leave it as more probably explained by a hypothetical designer than an unintelligent process. This sort of argument is more potent when appended to another argument proving God’s existence. You can see the teleological argument working in tandem with the cosmological argument we covered earlier.

It’s important to note that the teleological argument on its own, as I previously mentioned, attempts to prove the existence of an intelligent, all-powerful being. It does not, however, prove other characteristics of that being or, as some have suggested, that there is only one such being. Thus, the teleological argument is used by theists in the various monotheistic religions and deists alike. What the argument results in is the proof of a universal watchmaker. It does not demonstrate, however, the watchmaker has any interest in his watches, let alone intense, loving interest.

Fine-Tuning Argument

As our scientific knowledge has increased and sophisticated over the years, as we’ve developed more accurate instruments that measure more phenomena, many scientifically-minded people have drawn the conclusion that an intelligent designer is even more obviously behind the universe. An updated version of the teleological argument is known as the Fine-Tuning Argument.

In brief, a number of fundamental physical variables appear to be fine-tuned to support life. Life could not happen were apparent coincidences in physical constants not the case. If gravity were slightly different, habitable planets wouldn’t exist. For my astronomers out there, changes in gravity one way or the other would turn all stars into blue giants or red dwarfs.  If the universe wasn’t expanding at this precise rate, life wouldn’t exist. It would be either too hot or too cold. If the weakness of the gravitational force relative to the electro-magnetic force were different, life wouldn’t exist. The motions of fundamental particles wouldn’t be stable enough to sustain even cellular life.

The delicacy of life and these apparently specially suited constants and physical laws raise an important question: why does our universe exist in just this way? There are so many possible values, theoretically as many values as numbers. It is highly unlikely that random chance could align so many constants in such precise degrees and maintain them there.

Objection: just because an outcome is exceedingly unlikely or rare doesn’t mean that it was caused by intelligent design. All specific outcomes, like the arrangement of our universe, are equally improbable. It could still be that the unlikely event or sequence of events did in fact happen by chance. The odds we would flip a coin and land on it land on heads after doing so 20 times in a row are no worse than flipping a coin and landing on heads once. It could be that there are or have been many universes that came into and out of existence without the stability to support life. That we’re here now, observing the universe’s stability doesn’t tell us anything new. The theists is left to ask which is more reasonable, the theistic point of view that God created the universe as it is to support life or the atheistic point of view that the universe is as it is and the atoms happened to align in such a way to make conscious observers of the universe possible?

Note: It’s fair to pose the question to anyone scientifically-minded or inclined to heavily invest in the authority of natural sciences how they explain the origin of life? Empirical studies have an exceedingly hard time hypothesizing as to the leap from inanimate to animate objects. The chances are so vanishingly small the a random process could arrange the precise sequence of genetic information necessary for life that it would be unreasonable to grant strictly materialistic theories explanatory power. Again, there’s a lot more to consider than we have the time for here. My point is that we shouldn’t hesitate to show that the Christian worldview isn’t the only one that has apparent holes.

Anthropological - The last stop on our itinerary is the anthropological argument. “Anthropological” is likely to be a word more familiar to you. The root of anthropological is the Greek word anthropos, meaning human being. The anthropological argument, then, begins by wondering about a specific creature that dwells within the universe. From general observations about humanity, we wonder how it is we could be this way? I should add here that the anthropological argument isn’t one specific argument but a kind of argument like the teleological argument was, an umbrella term under which a number of arguments stand.

I mentioned at the outset that many of the arguments for the existence of God argue for theism generally. They conclude a powerful, necessary, and intelligent being exists. The anthropological argument goes farther. It brings us closer to a Judeo-Christian conception of God than the other arguments because a cornerstone of these faiths is the divine image of God in humankind. We believe, after all, in a personal God, and that is precisely the sort of God the anthropological argument posits.

From as far back as the 4th century Augustine to as recently as 2013 Tim Keller, Christians have been appealing to innate human knowledge and characteristics to point to God. We look to internal, common traits that most humans share, and argue from them to the existence and characteristics of the being who could have given them to us.

Moral

Most of us, for instance, have deep convictions regarding the need for wrongdoing to be rectified in some way. We’ll discuss Tim Keller’s moral argument for the existence of God later in this course as a refresher because it’s adept at dispelling the moral relativist’s objection to theistic belief. For now, let’s summarize C.S. Lewis’ version of the anthropological argument. The first of the four books that comprise his compilation Mere Christianity entitled “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe” builds a moral argument for the existence of God.

He begins with an observation that if you listen to people for any length of time, you’ll soon notice everyone makes appeals to objective moral standards. People are constantly referring to fairness or justice or reciprocity in praising or blaming others or asking others to behave a certain way. He adds that this law of right and wrong behavior is a unique sort of law in that we are aware of it but we can transgress it. We know about other laws that naturally govern us and ways that physical objects behave, for instance, but we can’t disobey them. We can’t make our blood cells cease bringing oxygen to our tissues and we can’t continue rising indefinitely when we jump.

Although this moral law has changed over time and although our understanding of facts has changed over time as well, Lewis asserts there has never been a total difference between moralities. Societies must adhere to certain kinds of rules and promote certain kinds of values in order to endure and these are what constitute the moral law of which Lewis is writing. There is, in fact, more in common than in contrast between various cultures and times.

Next, he notes that this law is compulsory. We are forced to believe in it and yet none of us abide by it completely. This means that moral law is prescriptive not descriptive. It doesn’t describe what we do. It tells us what we should do, which is significantly different. When we don’t do as we should, we make excuses for ourselves and our misdeeds. That practice goes to reinforce our belief in the moral law. We want a special exemption from that law, not to abolish the law altogether.

Having established these two propositions, 1) that we ought to behave in a certain way and 2) that we don’t do so, Lewis concludes that all of us are aware of ourselves as imperfect beings. Our imperfection is unique in the world in so far as our imperfection implies guilt. Plants and animals suffer from imperfections we call mutations or other ailments, but we don’t blame them for that because they couldn’t have been otherwise. But this blameworthiness, this sense of obligation, is unique to humans.

In order to be as binding as people act like it is, the moral law must be objectively real. It can’t be our personal preference. It can’t be an account of how we behave. It can’t be something made up by humans for the benefit of the society. In order to make us do it, regardless of what we want or what other humans want, it needs to be real independent of us.

Our knowledge of the reality of the moral law is unlike our knowledge of any natural laws or natural objects. We do not observe it with our five senses of touch, taste, smell, vision and hearing. We don’t observe it with that sixth sense we call the kinesthetic sense. It’s something we know more intimately, that is, subjectively. We know it because we are human. The moral law presents as something built into all humans, or nearly all humans. Now where, we ask, did this law come from? How could it be a real part of us if we didn’t make it up and if it isn’t perceivable?

That there is a fact that is knowable and real outside of physical, objective facts must be accounted for by our theory of reality. To this point, allow me to quote Lewis at length. “If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe--no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves.”

Here, as elsewhere, the theistic account goes up against atheistic accounts of the universe. If you recall back to our first class, I talked about the prevalence of modernist thinking in our society.  Confidence in science as a guiding light for completely describing reality is a very modernist and still very popular belief. When we offer up arguments for the existence of God to our skeptical peers, they’re likely to harbor what we call a materialist philosophy. Materialism basically holds that the only stuff that exists is physical stuff or matter. Materialists explain reality by solely physical processes such as thermodynamics and evolution. Contrastingly, Christian belief asserts there is an additional kind of stuff that isn’t physical or material but that nonetheless exists. We call this stuff metaphysical or spiritual. The Father, souls, and angels are all examples of metaphysical beings.

So, when we articulate a moral argument for the existence of God, we’re in effect claiming greater explanatory power for ourselves as opposed to the materialist alternative. In a universe made only of physical objects, we can’t explain the obligatory nature of the moral law, our knowledge of it, or the independent reality of it. For that, we need a moral being, an arbiter of right and wrong that engenders us with an awareness of and desire to conduct ourselves rightly.

Other

Materialism has other problems I’d like to briefly address before bringing the lecture to a close. Besides moral intuitions, we have other kinds that are innate or unlearned and which, never the less, we commonly consider to be truthful. By truthful I mean significantly true, as in accurately describing reality. For example, children from a young age display logical and mathematical intuitions. If we take these seriously and believe they provide us with real and important truths, at least when our cognitive faculties are functioning properly, then we must answer why we have them. A materialist can’t account for the legitimacy of those views, only for their evolutionary advantage. Truth has no inherent evolutionary value. Evolution doesn’t care if we’re wrong. What counts in natural selection is the propagation of the species via propagation of the individual animal. If error is advantageous, then the process of natural selection will promote that error. That is a dissatisfying ramification of the most popular sort of materialism. But that’s not materialism’s only soft spot

Love is central to much of our human experience. It’s quintessential to life, both in the multiplying of it and the sustaining of it. The variety of loves and affections people have is explained by a God who is himself love. If love is basic to the structure of reality, then we can see why so many different sorts of relationships would involve true, sacrificial love. Here again, materialist accounts cannot support or explain or endorse altruism adequately enough to justify, let alone require, the demand for selfless action we know to be imperative. I heard on NPR the other morning that science has explained altruism. My ears perked up at that. The ensuing story didn’t relay an explanation, though. It was a description, specifically recent scientific findings correlate large amygdalas--the loci of emotional recognition--with altruistic behavior. If your brain is bigger in certain spots, you’re less likely to be selfish, but that doesn’t say a thing as to why you are or why you should be. Here again, we see that materialism alone is not adequate ground on which to build an ethic.

There is so much that we do, that we are passionately committed to, that has no survival value. Indeed, we do and love it in large part because it serves no purpose and has negligible utilitarian value. Play, humor, and the arts all do so much more for us than let us live to see tomorrow or pass our genes down. The suggestion that such behaviors is only self-gratification is repulsive to us.

Those of us who spend time in art galleries, museums, sculpture parks, or even our own studies can attest to the stirring power of art. On the naturalist’s account, our susceptibility to certain sensory attributes that we would call beautiful or sublime or awesome is accidental. On the other hand, our aesthetic sense is explained by a God who recognizes beauty. That there is a shared sense of worthiness for appreciation suggests that there is something objectively in beautiful objects and artifacts to intuit.

Importantly, these features of humanity cannot be as well accounted for by materialism. Endowment of intuitions from an orderly, law-giving God makes more sense than an alternative account of humans as products of solely physical forces that encourage our survival. Similar to the chasm between inanimate and animate objects, materialism also has no adequate explanation for the correlation between physical and mental properties, between unconsciousness and consciousness. Here, then, is one of those fissures that opened up in the modern era. Confidence in humanity’s privileged status in the universe cannot cohere with confidence in a universe reduced to matter.

(return to Apologetics page)