This I Believe

Jerzy - Del Mar, California
Entered on March 16, 2009
Age Group: 65+
Themes: question
  • Listen to This I Believe on RadioPublic

  • Podcasts

    Sign up for our free, weekly podcast of featured essays. You can download recent episodes individually, or subscribe to automatically receive each podcast. Learn more.

  • FAQ

    Frequently asked questions about the This I Believe project, educational opportunities and more...

  • Top Essays USB Drive

    This USB drive contains 100 of the top This I Believe audio broadcasts of the last ten years, plus some favorites from Edward R. Murrow's radio series of the 1950s. It's perfect for personal or classroom use! Click here to learn more.

I believe an intelligent, loving God created a completely law-governed Universe, enabling us to enjoy discovering and understanding those laws, exploring their consequences, and participate with Him in His creation process.

Intelligent design proponents, use gaps in Darwinian theory as evidence for a God of gaps. But why would God, creating a Universe according to, logical, discoverable laws, insert gaps indicating His participation?

Do they claim that not even an omnipotent creator can create such wonder, based solely on laws? Do they know the Mind of God?

Why would He need gaps for us to appreciate how intelligent His creation is? Why not let us continue closing those gaps, to understand how great a creator He must be, who can create such wonder and complexity, based on discoverable laws?

Philosophical materialists premise that if all gaps close, then no need for God. For intelligent design proponents this premise must be the source of their fear. But that premise, that if I understand all the steps of a process, I understand the reason for it, is patently false.

Their approach is like that of a cave man, who jumping across time turns scientist, then using reductionism, analyzes a DVD of Beethoven’s fifth and the laws that govern, but never appreciates the music nor the composer.

I believe that the big questions are about subjective issues, about the question “Why?” and so cannot be answered through reductionism, which only answers the question “How?”

Reductionism inevitably leads to the holy grail of physics – an equation for the Theory of Everything.

So why is that not a satisfactory answer to the big questions? Because those very questions are about the subjective “Why?” requiring subjective explanations. Bluntly put, studying the mechanics of my foot does not help me understand why I stubbed my toe.

We want to know the nature and totality of discoverable reality, the source of that reality, why we are alive, our lives’ purpose, is there a greater reality, and so on, questions science is not equipped to answer.

Materialists posit such questions as unanswerable. If true, then life makes no sense – a defeatist proposition – for how can we continue discovering if we close our minds to possibilities other than reductionist ones?

For materialists, God also leaves an unanswerable question – why does God exist? True. So ultimately the choice is between the reductionist answer – explaining everything in terms of an equation – or an aswer at the highest level, explaining everything, including that equation, in terms of God.

The difference between these possibilities is profound, because the first is closed to further questions – you cannot ask “Whence the equation?” – whereas the second is quite open to unlimited further questioning of His plan. The second can explain many of the big questions – the first one has not a chance.

Which one would you pick?