We have seen that the Christian creed can be defended first
on the ground of a vast consensus of opinion, and secondly on the ground
that historical evidence supports the truth of its statements on matters
of historical fact.
The third reason why Christians stand by their creed is
that
THE CREED ITSELF IS REASONABLE.
It gives a certain explanation of the universe,
and the Church claims
that this explanation fits the facts, as we know them,
whereas no other explanation does.
Clearly we must, again without prejudice, examine this claim.
The first and fundamental assertion of the creed is that
GOD EXISTS.
This cannot be proved in the sense that we can prove that any two sides of
a triangle are together greater than the third side.
But it can be shown that the assertion is REASONABLE,
and most people would find no difficulty in agreeing
that it is more reasonable than the assertion that
there is no God.
Various philosophical arguments have been produced for the
existence of God,
but for our present purpose we can be content with that which rests on
THE PRESENCE OF ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE.
Scientific observation has shown that the natural tendency of things is
not to become more orderly
but to become less orderly.
The universe is not a disorderly collection of material gradually forming
itself into orderly shapes following orderly laws.
On the contrary, the orderly arrangements are continually breaking up,
and once order has been disorganized it cannot be reconstituted in precisely
the same way.
The universe has been found to consist of a vast mass of energy, unevenly
distributed.
Natural processes can only be explained by supposing that the energy of the
universe is being continually redistributed,
and the traffic is always one way?
from hotter to colder,
from a higher to a lower degree of organization.
'Time' consists simply of this gradual evening out of energy.
Eventually a state will be reached in which the redistribution will be so
complete that a perfect balance will have been achieved.
'Time', as we understand it,
will then cease to have any reality.
However, our business is not with the end,
but with the beginning.
The original arrangement of energy must
have come about somehow.
IT IS AT LEAST REASONABLE
TO SUPPOSE THAT THIS HIGHLY ORGANIZED ARRANGEMENT
DID NOT JUST HAPPEN TO COME INTO BEING,
BUT WAS DESIGNED AND SET IN MOTION
BY SOME OUTSIDE AGENCY.
AND, if so,
there is not much difficulty in supposing that
THE SAME AGENCY CONTINUES TO SUPERVISE AND DIRECT THE WHOLE PROCESS.
In the course of its 'running down', the energy of the universe
forms itself into all kinds of regularly repeated patterns.
IT WORKS TO A PLAN.
The solar system and the atom?
the branches of a tree and the blood-circulation system of a mammal?
these are PATTERNS
which reproduce themselves
with startling similarity in entirely different circumstances.
We ourselves make patterns.
WE DO SO BY THE USE OF OUR MINDS.
We cannot make a horse;
but we can make a motor-cycle.
IF THE MOTOR-CYCLE IS THE PRODUCT OF MIND ARRANGING THE
MATERIAL OF THE UNIVERSE,
IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT THE HORSE IS THE PRODUCT OF MIND
ARRANGING THE MATERIAL OF THE UNIVERSE.
There is nothing contrary to reason
in regarding the creating and controlling force at work on the universe as
A MIND.
But what sort of a mind?
SINCE OUR MINDS ARE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING TO SOME EXTENT
THE WAY IN WHICH THE UNIVERSE WORKS,
IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT
THEY MUST BE IN SOME WAY AKIN TO THE CREATING MIND.
We are entitled, for instance, to assume that the creating mind is one that
works on logical principles.
It must be a mind in which given causes produce particular effects,
in which two and two make four,
in which a2 - b2 = (a + b)(a - b).
Sir James Jeans' observation
'that the Great Architect of the Universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician'
[The Mysterious Universe. ],
and the statement in the Book of Genesis
that God created man in his own image,
are opposite ends of the same truth.
If there is a correspondence between our reasoning faculties
and the working of the creating mind,
WE MAY FAIRLY SUPPOSE THAT
THE OTHER GREAT CHARACTERISTIC OF OUT MINDS,
NAMELY OUR SENSE OF VALUES,
IS EQUALLY A REFLECTION OF THAT MIND.
Every thought and action of ours is based upon two principles:
first that a given cause will produce a particular effect:
and secondly that of any number of given possibilities some are 'better'
or 'worse' than others.
IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT
THIS ATTACHMENT OF VALUES TO THINGS
IS A FEATURE OF THE CREATING MIND.
If so, it is a matter of the utmost significance.
It is impossible for us to conceive of
a mind that works logically
and has a scale of values
except in terms of PERSONALITY.
IT IS REASONABLE, THEREFORE, FOR US TO CONCLUDE
THAT GOD POSSESSES PERSONALITY.
Here we are up against one of the difficulties of language.
Christians speak of Three Persons in One God,
using the word 'Person' in a technical sense.
What is involved in this?
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?
we shall have to discuss later in our inquiry.
What we mean here is that God is' Personal' and that God is ' One'.
It would be unreasonable to suppose that there is more than one creating
mind,
since this would introduce all sorts of unnecessary complications.
Now if there is a God,
if God is personal,
and if God created the universe,
IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE
THAT HIS CREATIVE ACTION WAS NOT ENTIRELY POINTLESS.
In other words,
it had some object or purpose.
IT IS ALSO REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT,
HAVING CREATED THE UNIVERSE FOR A PURPOSE,
HE TAKES SOME INTEREST IN IT.
We cannot prove that, having set the ball rolling, he did not leave it at
that and let the ball roll on as it would;
but by the standards of human
reasoning this is unlikely.
So far as our knowledge of the universe
goes,
the most remarkable fact in the universe is
THE FACT OF OUR OWN EXISTENCE.
That a collection of electric waves or what not, jigging about in space according
to some kind of mathematical rules, should have produced not merely stars
and nebulae but living creatures -
and, what is more, living creatures who
can grasp the said mathematical rules and do all sorts of exciting things
with the physical material of the universe -
is, when we come to think about
it, a most extraordinary development.
IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE
THAT IT IS NOT DUE TO SOME ACCIDENT,
BUT IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH
THE PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE.
In fact, we do not know of any other part of the universe than our own planet
that is likely to be inhabited by living creatures, as we understand the
term.
The conditions in which life, as we know it, can exist depend upon a most
complicated combination of circumstances such as can come about only as the
result of a most exceptional chain of events.
The universe is so immense that we cannot say for certain that similar conditions
to those that have made life possible on the earth have not occurred or will
not occur elsewhere.
We can only say that within the range of our knowledge (which is quite considerable)
this has not taken place.
What is certain is that here those conditions have occurred,
with very remarkable results.
They have occurred either by accident or by design.
If anyone can feel that they occurred by accident, there is no more to be
said.
It is a question, which theory is the more reasonable, and that must be a
matter of opinion.
Christians hold that, taking everything into account, it
is more reasonable to suppose that these things happened by design than that
they happened as the result of a most amazing series of flukes.
Some people are overwhelmed by the hugeness of the universe.
The notion of star-cities and light-years calculated by the million seems
to reduce man to utter insignificance.
But surely the opposite view is more reasonable.
The fact that man can measure and comprehend these immensities -
and that,
so far as we know, he is the only creature in the material universe capable
of doing so -
justifies us in regarding him as the high spot of the whole
creation.
We, small creatures that we are, are accustomed to have to
economize our resources and to avoid waste;
it is impossible for us to put ourselves in the place of an almighty creator.
But our experience shows that a vast outpouring of material to secure some
comparatively small result is part of the normal processes of nature.
A plant produces thousands of seeds in order that one or two may germinate.
A million million spermatozoa,
All of them alive:
Out of their cataclysm but one poor Noah
Dare hope to survive.
[Aldous Huxley, Fifth Philosopher's Song.]
There is nothing, then, contrary to experience in the idea
that the whole huge universe of stars and atoms was brought into being simply
in order that in a minute corner of it life and humanity might be born and
nourish.
And, incidentally, the existence of all the rest has furnished this same
humanity with a perennial and absorbing field of beauty and interest on which
to exercise its aesthetic and intellectual gifts.
The world would be dull indeed if we had not the stars.
If God created the universe,
and if he created us,
or arranged for us to develop,
in such a way that we could share in the knowledge of the universe,
IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT HE ATTACHES SOME VALUE TO US.
WE MAY DARE TO SAY THAT HE LOVES US.
But if this is so,
why is it that in so many obvious ways
the arrangement of the universe does not seem to be what we should expect
from a loving creator?
Page^