Follow usTwitterFacebook


01 Jul 2015 Articles Resources Comments (26)

Meet Father Salvatore, the young priest whose life moved the Pope

The life of Father Salvatore Mellone, who died on Monday 26th June 2015, was touching to thousands of people. He was to have at least two more years of seminary…

Read more

05 Nov 2014 Q&A Comments (5)

May my girlfriend and I be intimate with one another before marriage?

Full Question A priest told my girlfriend that it is okay for us to touch one another intimately before we are married. Is this correct? Answer N…

Read more

16 Jun 2015 Articles Resources Comments (1)

Thomas Merton, Lent, and the Perils of Avoiding Suffering

We spend one day a week not eating meat, and on a few days we skip meals altogether. We voluntarily deprive ourselves of good things. We intentionally pon…

Read more

20 Feb 2016 Articles Comments (5)

The Hell There Is!

The doctrine of hell is so frightening that numerous heretical sects end up denying the reality of an eternal hell. The Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-day…

Read more

03 Apr 2015 Q&A No comments

Why is St. Therese of Lisieux (1873–1897) a patron of aviators?

Full Question Why is St. Therese of Lisieux (1873–1897) a patron of aviators? Answer In the early years of the twentieth century, St. Therese’s spi…

Read more

04 Jul 2015 Articles No comments

Is passionate kissing only moral within marriage?

May a man and a woman who are dating, but unmarried, engage in passionate kissing? Is passionate kissing outside of marriage moral, or a venial sin, or a mortal…

Read more

02 Jun 2016 Vatican No comments

God has a weakness for humble hearts, Pope says at audience

The Pope continued his catechetical series on prayer at his latest general audience While the prayer of a proud person isn’t strong enough to reach God’s heart…

Read more

19 Feb 2016 Articles No comments

Pontifical Effect

Raphael Sanzio gets credit for a style of papal portraiture that lasted more than four centuries. It began with his portrait of Julius II (reigned 1503–1513), w…

Read more

01 Aug 2015 Q&A Comments (2)

Call No Man "Father"?

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father…

Read more
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

God or Atheism — Which Is More Rational? – Peter Kreeft

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith.

Is it rational to believe in God?  Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water.  They are wrong.  Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.  Logic can show that there is a God.  If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.  The argument starts with the not-very-startling observation that things move.  But nothing moves for no reason.  Something must cause that movement, and whatever caused that must be caused by something else, and so on.  But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever.  It must have a beginning.  There must be an unmoved mover to begin all the motion in the universe, a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements in quantum mechanics — radioactive decay, for example — have no discernible cause.  But hang on a second.  Just because scientists don’t see a cause doesn’t mean there isn’t one.  It just means science hasn’t found it yet.  Maybe someday they will.  But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one.  And so on and so on.  But science will never find the first cause.  That’s no knock on science.  It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause.  Nothing can come from nothing.  So if there’s no first cause, there can’t be second causes — or anything at all.  In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask.  Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old — that it had a beginning, in the big bang.  If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist.  And things which don’t have to exist must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from big-bang cosmology.  We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago, and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since.  No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise”.  Now, add to this premise a very logical second premise, the principle of causality, that nothing begins without an adequate cause, and you get the conclusion that since there was a big bang, there must be a “big banger”.

It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing.  It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

But is this “big banger” God?  Why couldn’t it be just another universe?  Because Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that all time is relative to matter, and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time.  So there’s no time before the big bang.  And even if there is time before the big bang, even if there is a multiverse, that is, many universes with many big bangs, as string theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning.

An absolute beginning is what most people mean by ‘God’.  Yet some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a creator.  Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

How far will scientists go to avoid having to conclude that God created the universe?  Here’s what Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind said:  “Real scientists resist the temptation to explain creation by divine intervention.  We resist to the death all explanations of the world based on anything but the laws of physics.”  Yet the father of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton, believed fervently in God.  Was he not a real scientist?  Can you believe in God and be a scientist, and not be a fraud?  According to Susskind, apparently not.  So who exactly are the closed-minded ones in this debate?

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith.  Atheism requires faith.  It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing.  It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God. I’m Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, for Prager University.


Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories