Can we be sure God exists?

REASONS FOR BELIEVING (1)

Introduction

The existence of God is not obvious to us. If it were, everyone would believe in God. We might as well be honest about this. On the other hand, this does not mean that God does not exist. The existence of atoms, or bacteria, or the planet Neptune, are not obvious to us either, but we still believe that they exist. There is good evidence that they are real. The purpose of this pamphlet is to look at the evidence for the existence of God. And this is vitally important. If God does exist, then it is going to make a difference to our lives—in fact it will give meaning to our lives.

People have always questioned the existence of God. This is clearly recognised even in the Bible. Psalm 14(13) begins: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God!’” However, in the last few hundred years belief in God has declined considerably. Nowadays many people do not even bother to think about the question of whether God exists. They just casually presume that he does not; or if he does, that he is completely irrelevant to their lives.

There are many reasons for this, but the most important is the popular idea that science has disproved God. And this is a real pity, because modern science has in fact given us powerful evidence that there must be a supreme Mind behind the world we live in. In particular, modern cosmology, the study of the universe as a whole, and the biology of evolution have given us amazing proof of God.

Asking questions about God—even about whether he exists—is permissible and important. If we have been made by God, then he has also made our minds with the ability to ask deep questions and discover deep answers. It is therefore our duty to use our minds to ask questions and find out about him. This has always been an important part of Catholicism, even though it is unfortunately often overlooked these days. Some of the greatest saints have seriously discussed this question in their writings. If we cannot be certain that God exists, then faith in God is just a matter of guesswork or personal preference—and then we are only one step away from agnosticism, the view that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. If we can be certain of God, then it makes sense to base our life on him. So we need to look at the evidence.

Why does anything exist?—An Argument from Contingency

The Phenomenon of Contingency

It is part of our everyday experience that things happen because they are caused—they do not “just happen”. The window breaks because it has been hit by a stone; the telephone rings because someone has phoned me; I am wet because it is raining. We find causes everywhere. And we live our lives based on this fact. We know that our actions will have predictable consequences. If I cook beaten eggs in a frying pan I will get an omelette, not an apple pie or a sofa!

Again, all the objects we see in the world around us need to be caused. The pamphlet you are reading exists because someone wrote it and someone printed it. The paper it is printed on exists because of the wood pulp it was made from, which existed because of the trees it was made from, and so on. The things we see need causes. Technically, we call them contingent. They did not have to exist, they are not just there; they exist because they were caused by something else.

Our experience of causes is an everyday, or rather an every moment, experience. It is also the foundation of all science and technology. Science looks at the world we live in, and discovers deep order and regularity, which we call the laws of science. It asks why that order is there, and finds answers. Science works. Technology is the proof. Technology applies the knowledge gained by scientific research to making useful devices.  Our world is full of these devices—computers, televisions, aeroplanes, and so on. If science did not discover genuine causes, then technology would not produce working devices. In conclusion, everywhere that we can do science, we are dealing with things which are contingent, that is things which need causes to exist.

Tracing Causes back to the Big Bang

If we consider this pamphlet again, we can trace its causes back through history. It is made from paper, which is made from trees. The trees grew from seeds, which grew on parent trees, which grew from seeds… But the whole species of tree evolved from simpler plants, which evolved from even simpler life … back to the origins of life on earth. Life was caused by the complex arrangements of chemicals on the surface of the primeval earth, and these were made from simpler chemicals, and so on back to the formation of the earth from dust and gas in the primeval solar system. Ultimately we can trace the causes of this pamphlet all the way back to the Big Bang, the explosion at the beginning of the universe about 15 billion years ago. At this point we run out of causes in the universe.

However, this does not mean that we do not need any more causes. We can still ask why the universe exists, and why it is the way it is. The universe, like everything in it, is contingent. Of course, this has always been true, but within the last hundred years, the development of modern cosmology has demonstrated this truth more clearly than ever. Two major advances in  science allowed this. The first was Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1915, the second was Edwin Hubble’s discovery in 1929 that the universe is expanding. These two steps allowed scientists to describe the behaviour of the universe as a whole. Not only do the things in the universe obey the laws of science, the universe itself obeys them.

Now, if the universe obeys the laws of science then it is something that needs a cause. It is contingent. It is not “just there”. But the cause of the universe cannot be part of itself. It must be ‘outside’ or ‘above’ the universe. We see for the first time that there must be a God. Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, puts it like this:

“My conclusion, then, is that the physical universe is not compelled to exist as it is; it could have been otherwise. In that case we are returned to the problem of why it is as it is… We have no choice but to seek an explanation in something beyond or outside the physical world—in something  metaphysical—because,  as  we  have  seen,  a  contingent  physical  universe  cannot contain within itself an explanation for itself.”1

The Need for a First Cause

Whenever we explain a contingent being with another contingent being, we have not really got a full explanation, because neither the thing nor its cause had to exist. There is still some explaining to do. For example, if we explain this pamphlet in terms of the paper it is made from, we still have to ask why the paper existed. And if we explain the paper in terms of the tree it was made from, we still have to explain why the tree existed. In fact, however long the chain of causes is, if the first link of the chain is contingent, we still have some explaining to do. In conclusion, if we want to find a full explanation for any contingent being, we ultimately need a non-contingent cause. We need a First Cause, that does not need to be caused itself. For a second time we see that there must be a God.

Sometimes people suggest that God is not necessary if the chain of causes is infinitely long—you can just explain every link in the chain in terms of the link before. This is, in fact, a mistake. Just because a chain of causes is infinitely long does not mean that it has to exist. It is quite possible to imagine a universe in which that particular chain did not exist. And if the chain does not have to exist, then it needs a reason or a cause in order to exist. We still require a First, uncaused Cause: we still need God. Quite apart from all this, we also know from science that the universe is not infinitely old, so infinite chains are ruled out anyway.

We can also answer the question, “Who made God?”. By carefully thinking about the universe, we have just discovered that it requires an uncaused Cause—something that does not need to be made. Thus, by definition, no one made God, because God is not contingent. This is a difficult thought, but it is worth stressing that we have not just imagined a God who does not need to be made; we have discovered that the universe needs this sort of God in order to explain it.

Why is the Universe not the First Cause?

People sometimes ask why we need God at all; why can the universe not be the First Cause? Richard Dawkins, a famous biologist and an ardent atheist, has said:

“To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say ‘DNA was always there’, or ‘Life was always there’, and be done with it.”2

The answer to this, however, is clear. We know that DNA and life were not always there. Not even the universe was always there. These are established scientific facts. But there is a more important consideration. The universe and everything in it need causes; they are contingent. We know this from science too. God is the only being who can always be there.

Therefore this God must be unlike everything we know from everyday life. Everything we can see in the world around us is made of matter, and everything made of matter needs to be caused. But we have just seen that to explain the world we need an uncaused First Cause, namely God. Therefore God cannot be made of matter. He must be pure Spirit, pure Mind. It also follows that God is not part of the universe; rather he is the cause of everything that exists. This is what it means to call God the Creator.

Law and Order—An Argument from the Unity of the Universe

As we have already mentioned, science has discovered a remarkable amount of order and harmony in the universe. It is worth looking at this order in some detail because, behind the amazing variety of the things we see, it reveals a wonderful unity.

To start with a simple example, when Isaac Newton “discovered” gravity, what he actually did was to discover the universality of gravitation. What he realised is that the force that makes apples fall on earth is the same as the force that makes the moon stay in orbit around the earth, and makes the earth and the other planets orbit the sun. Gravity is not just something on earth, it applies throughout the universe. Since Newton’s time we have discovered that the same force of gravity explains the formation of stars, the existence of black holes, and the development of the large-scale structure of the universe from the Big Bang onwards.

Another example of unity behind diversity is electromagnetism. Science has shown that the phenomena of  electricity  and magnetism are linked: electricity  can produce a  magnetic field;  a moving magnet can produce an electric current. James Clerk Maxwell then showed that if electricity can produce magnetism, and magnetism can produce electricity, then the two together should produce waves, and he could work out how fast these waves should travel. Imagine his elation when he found that the predicted speed was the speed of light! Electromagnetic waves are light, radio waves, X-rays etc. Not only are the phenomena of electricity and magnetism really part of a single reality of physics, light is also part of the same single reality.

Within the last century, physics has shown that all the fundamental laws of the universe are really only aspects of two laws—quantum mechanics and general relativity—and there is real hope and expectation among physicists that these two will be found to be united at a deeper level. Then we will have discovered a single “Grand Unified Theory” lying beneath all the rich variety of things in the universe, from the subatomic to the intergalactic. We could call such a theory a “Unity-Law”. It shows that the whole physical universe is a coherent and ordered unity because it obeys a single law. Few scientists today would doubt that such a law in fact exists.

The Meaning of a Unity-Law

Thus science is discovering a single law or principle “behind” or “above” the material universe, a law which brings about everything that exists and everything that happens in the universe. This is of the greatest importance, because this discovery is remarkably similar in many ways to the idea of God. God the Creator is a unity, who causes everything that exists and everything that happens in the universe. This is really strong evidence that science is rediscovering God.

However, there is a crucial difference between a Unity-Law and God himself. No law of science can exist by itself. The laws of science are properties of matter; they just describe how matter behaves. So the laws only exist where matter exists. Consequently, the laws of science cannot explain how matter comes into existence. Stephen Hawking, the famous Cambridge physicist, has expressed this point beautifully:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”3

The only answer is that where there is a law there must be a lawgiver. The law itself cannot be the cause of the universe. God is the Lawgiver, the First Cause. The Unity-Law is the expression of the wisdom of God. It shows us that God’s creation manifests his supreme intelligence. God has made the universe in a wonderful way, so that all its rich diversity emerges from a simple, beautiful and unified order. Hawking again puts it well—even if, in fact, he thinks he is just being provocative!

“However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason— for then we would know the mind of God.”4

Where is it all going?—An Argument from Design

The History of the Universe

If we look at the history of the universe, we see how wonderful its development has been. According to standard scientific ideas, the universe began with the so-called Big Bang, an explosion of unimaginable energy, some 15 billion years ago. All matter, energy, and even space and time emerged from this explosion. In its earliest phase the universe was filled with a sea of tremendously energetic subatomic particles: electrons, protons, neutrons etc., and radiation. As the universe expanded, it cooled down. Some of the particles joined together to produce nuclei of very simple elements such as helium. After about 100 million years the universe was finally cool enough for protons and electrons to combine together to form atoms of hydrogen gas. At this point the universe became transparent, and consisted very largely of hydrogen and helium gas. Over the next few billion years the force of gravity made this gas form into clumps which became galaxies. Smaller clumps of gas collapsed even more under their own weight and formed stars.

Inside stars the extreme temperatures and pressures cause the hydrogen to undergo nuclear reactions which form heavier elements: helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.—the elements that our planet and our bodies will be made of. As a star runs out of hydrogen, its core can collapse even further and get even hotter. The nuclear reactions occur more and more quickly. Finally, many stars end their life in a huge explosion called a supernova, in which a lot of the elements which the star has synthesised are thrown out into space again to mix with the existing hydrogen and helium.

When this new mixture of gases and dust collapses to form stars, the heavier elements present can cause rocky planets like Mars or the Earth etc. to form. As these planets cool, the physical conditions of temperature and pressure etc.  and  the  laws  of  chemistry  determine  what  sort  of chemicals are produced on them. On a small fraction of planets the conditions will be suitable for the formation of complex carbon-based, or “organic” chemicals—the sort that living things are made of.

On at least one planet self-replicating molecules were produced by some process which scientists as yet have very little idea of, although they may discover the process in the future. Thus, from the simplest of beginnings, life emerged in the universe through the workings of the laws of science—or rather, through the working of the “Unity-Law”. But this was not the end!

Through the further operation of scientific law, the primitive forms of life evolved. From self- replicating molecules, bacteria-like cells were probably the first to evolve; then more complex single- celled organisms, such as amoebae. Then multi-cellular organisms were produced—simple plants and animals—then more complex organisms. Finally, after about three billion years of evolution of life on Earth, a species of ape evolved, which became more and more intelligent—still, as always, under the scientific laws of evolution—and the result was us human beings.5

The Importance of the Environment

Throughout this process of development and evolution, nothing in the universe acts independently of the rest. The universe is a united and linked whole. It is a cosmos, not a chaos. This is particularly relevant in biology. The environment is crucially important to every living being just to sustain life. In order to survive a plant needs sunshine, air, water and nutrients from the soil; it may also need insects or birds or the wind to pollinate it or to disperse its seeds. It also needs micro-organisms to break down dead plant and animal matter to provide the nutrients it absorbs from the soil. And these are just a  few of the most obvious environmental requirements of a plant. The environment also plays a central role in the processes of evolution. Scarcity or abundance of food, changes in climate, and the presence or absence of predators or competitors are some of the many factors which drive a species to evolve.

At a more basic level, even the huge bulk of the Earth is vital to life. If the Earth were much lighter then the atmosphere would escape into space and we would all suffocate. In fact even the huge size of the universe is vital. Only in an enormous, multi-billion-year aged universe do galaxies and stars have time to form; and without stars there would be no light or heat, nor any chemical elements in any quantity except hydrogen and helium.

We  come  to  realise  that  everything  in  the  world  has  a  purpose  in  terms  of  the  overall development of the universe. Nothing is irrelevant; everything has a part to play; everything has meaning.

The Meaning of the Universe

The history of the universe is thus one of incredible development, from very simple beginnings to amazing diversity and complexity. This evolution of the universe and of life comes about through the operation of simple scientific laws. The whole process is a harmonious and coherent whole—every stage depends on the previous stage; everything evolves by interacting with its environment, and the environment itself evolves in parallel.

We saw in the argument from unity that God’s wisdom is expressed in the unified way he controls his creation through a Unity-Law. Here we can see that this Unity-Law has purpose or direction as well. The Unity-Law is a law of control and direction. It implements the unified plan of God for his creation. The history of the universe shows that it is incredibly well designed to bring about such amazing development from such simple beginnings.  The laws of science are the mechanism by which the design is implemented—as matter follows these laws, it evolves. But the laws of science do not explain the design. A design needs a cause, it needs a designer; and that designer must be intelligent. The design of the whole universe requires a supreme Mind, outside and above the universe: it requires God.

Possible Mistakes (1) Reductionism

It is worth emphasising that the laws of science do not explain away the design of the universe. An analogy may be useful here. Imagine a fully automated factory, for example a car factory, in which robots assemble the finished product from the raw materials. When we look at the finished car we recognise that it is well designed, it is well constructed to do a particular job. We conclude that it must have been designed by someone. But it might be objected that in fact it has not been designed; it was just produced by machines blindly following a standard procedure—there is no mind involved here at all, certainly no designer. However, we instantly see that this argument is short-sighted. There is indeed no designer directly involved in the manufacture of the individual car, but the car certainly does have a designer, and a highly intelligent designer at that. Not only has the car been designed, but so has the whole factory. In the same way, the laws of science themselves are not intelligent. The laws of science have not designed galaxies and atoms and people. Instead the laws of science are the well designed tools with which a very great Designer has “manufactured” his creations.

The danger we are trying to avoid here is called reductionism. We all recognise that the laws of science have a part to play in the evolution of the universe and of life. Reductionists claim that evolution is nothing but the result of the laws of science. They think that God and science are competing explanations for evolution: if science explains it, then God is redundant; if God explains it, then science is pointless. It is a bit like saying that the robots in the factory and the designer are competing explanations for the car. But we can see that there is no real competition here. In the same way God and science go together perfectly. Science was God’s idea, God created science. And he created it for a purpose, and that purpose is ultimately ourselves.

Possible Mistakes (2) Evolution by Chance

Another common error is to think that evolution just happens by chance, because, in Darwin’s theory, evolution happens because of random mutations. There are several mistakes involved here. Firstly, “random mutations” are only random in a special sense. Mutations are not chance events; they are caused by various chemical reactions, by ultra-violet light, by cosmic rays etc. They happen in accordance with the laws of science, which are not random. The mutations are only “random” in the sense that what causes them is not important for the future course of evolution. Secondly, even with this special meaning of “random mutations”, evolution itself is not random. According to Darwin’s theory, the process driving evolution is natural selection, which is in no way random. Even Richard Dawkins, our favourite atheist, is in agreement with us here:

“One of my tasks will be to destroy this eagerly believed myth that Darwinism is a theory of ‘chance’.”6

Finally, chance can never be an explanation for anything at all. When we say something happened by chance, we mean precisely that it was not caused by anything; it does not have an explanation. If we say  evolution  happened  by  chance,  we  mean  that  evolution cannot  be  explained. If it can be explained, then it is explained by something, and we do not have to invoke “chance”.

Possible Mistakes (3) Many Universes

Another strange idea sometimes discussed these days is that there may be “many universes”, and that this could explain away the design of our universe. The theory goes like this. There are a vast number of universes, each one different from the others. Almost all of them will be very dull, but in just a few of them the conditions will turn out to be right for some interesting things to happen. A small fraction of these may be able to support intelligent life. We, obviously, find ourselves in one of these very special universes. But there is no need for a designer because there are so many boring universes as well.

This theory is very silly. In the first place there is absolutely no evidence for any other universe than our own. There never could be. By definition, the universe is everything that we could ever possibly observe or be influenced by. But even if we allow this flight of fantasy, where did all the other universes come from? What guarantees that any “interesting” universes exist? Why are they not all boring? And whose bright idea was it to make lots of different universes so that one, at least, would evolve intelligent life? … We still need an intelligent Designer.

But the many-universes theory is even sillier still.  If  you  can  explain  evolution away  by supposing that there are many universes, and evolution will occur in a few of them just by chance, then  you  can  explain anything and  everything in  exactly the  same way. For instance, why do aeroplanes fly? Well, there are a huge number of universes, and in almost all of them aeroplanes do not fly—we just happen to be in one where by chance they do. In the end, everything becomes completely meaningless.

Possible Mistakes (4) Literalism or Fundamentalism

A final mistake that is sometimes made is to suppose that the scientific view of the world, especially the evolution of the universe and of life over billions of years, contradicts the Bible. The book of Genesis says that God created the world in only six days. So either science is wrong or the Bible is wrong.

This criticism is only valid if you think that the Bible has to be interpreted in the most naïvely literal way. In fact, the account of creation in six days is a poem or a hymn. It uses language to tell the truth in a solemn and symbolic way.7 Further, the biblical narrative of creation in six days (Gen 1:1–2:4) is not the only account of creation in the Bible; it is immediately followed by another quite different one (Gen 2:4–25) which diverges from the first in a number of details. For example, in the six-day narrative plants appear on the third day (Gen 1:11–13), well before the creation of man on the sixth day (Gen 1:27); whereas in the second narrative God creates man before there are any plants (Gen 2:5–7). However, neither of these accounts need be interpreted so extremely literally that they seem to be contradicted by one another or by the discoveries of modern science.8

Seen in this light, there is in fact an amazing harmony between the Bible and science. Both tell us of a universe which is created by God from nothing, which develops from very simple beginnings, where everything is found in its proper place, in its right environment, and which culminates in the creation of human beings. The whole process is ordered, not random; it is designed for a purpose.

The Anthropic Principle

Quite how clearly this purpose has influenced the design of the universe has only become apparent in recent years. It turns out that the fundamental properties of the universe, such as the strength of the forces of gravity and electromagnetism, are very carefully balanced so that life can evolve. If these properties were even slightly different, the universe would be a very different place, and life could not exist. For example, if the forces of gravity and electromagnetism had slightly different strengths, then stars would not be able to explode as supernovae; they would either never be able to form in the first place, or they would always collapse under their own weight and become black holes. As a result no heavier elements such as carbon or oxygen could either ever be made or ever escape back into space to form into planets—or us. Paul Davies puts it like this:

“A  careful  study  suggests  that  the  laws  of  the  universe  are  remarkably  felicitous  for  the emergence of richness and variety. In the case of living organisms, their existence seems to depend on a number of fortuitous coincidences that some scientists and philosophers have hailed as nothing short of astonishing.”9

Explaining things as merely astonishingly fortuitous coincidences is not satisfactory. There must be some reason for the situation. This need for a reason has been given the name the anthropic principle (from the Greek word anthropos, meaning human being). The implication is that the universe has been very carefully set up so that human beings could evolve.

This is another powerful piece of evidence that everything in the world has purpose and meaning. Even the most fundamental properties of the universe have been chosen so that we could exist. Here again we must conclude that the universe has been designed by a supremely intelligent Mind. The anthropic principle does not make sense without God.

Conclusion—So What?

In this pamphlet evidence has been given to show that God exists. This is the only reasonable conclusion from the data of modern science. If we take ourselves seriously—if we trust our ability to discover the truth about the world we live in—then we cannot escape the conclusion that this world is the creation of an all-wise God. In other words, modern science has proved that God exists.

Sometimes people object to calling this sort of argument a proof, because it is not as “neat” or as “pure” as a mathematical proof. But a proof is an argument that shows us that we can be legitimately certain of the conclusion. The proof presented here is based on a combination of evidence from science and logical argument. Any proof of the existence of something must be like this. Our minds have the ability to reach valid conclusions from combinations of evidence and logic. We could not survive in the world if we were not able to make valid conclusions based on evidence. When there is enough evidence, it is unreasonable and illogical to refuse to be certain.

Our conclusion, then, is that God exists. He is pure Spirit, pure Mind. He is not made of matter; he is not part of the universe. He created the universe from nothing. He created it as an ordered, harmonious and beautiful unity. He created it for a reason, and that reason is you and me—human beings. It may seem too good to be true; it may seem arrogant to say it, but an honest and unbiased study of the evidence shows that it all points in the same direction. The conclusion is inescapable, and deeply humbling.

In fact, the basic lines of this proof of the existence of God have been perceived for thousands of years. The Old Testament Book of Wisdom states the case in a way that is astonishingly similar to our conclusions here, even though it was written many years before Christ, many hundreds of years before the beginnings of modern science.

For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists, nor did they recognise the craftsman while paying heed to his works; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.

If through delight in the beauty of these things men assumed them to be gods, let them know how much better than these is their Lord, for the author of beauty created them.

And if men were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is he who formed them. For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. Yet these men are little to be blamed, for perhaps they go astray while seeking God and desiring to find him.

For as they live among his works they keep searching, and they trust in what they see, because the things that are seen are beautiful. Yet again, not even they are to be excused; for if they had the power to know so much that they could investigate the world, how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things?

Wisdom 13:1-9

Our modern knowledge has wonderfully vindicated the truth of this insight.

But so what? Who is this God? Is he interested in me as a person? Might he even love me? These are questions that are beyond the scope of science. The nearest we can get is that we should expect God to be interested in us, even to love us. After all, he has created a whole universe just so that we should exist. If he did not love us, then why did he create us?

But if he does love us, then we will want to get to know him personally, and surely he will want to share his love with us at a personal level. He should want to talk with us. And so we expect God to reveal himself to us. This is the subject of the other pamphlets in this series. They will show that creation through evolution is just the initial stage of an even greater plan of God for us. The Unity- Law, which we have seen as the foundation of all the laws of science, in fact extends much further, into the spiritual realm as well. The development of the universe which we have seen so far—the evolution of galaxies, stars and planets, and the evolution of life—does not end there. God’s plan continues through the creation of the spiritual soul, and his revelation of himself to us from the beginning of the human race, through the history of the people of Israel, right up to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; then through the Catholic Church, and finally into eternal life—for God’s plan for us is a beautifully harmonious whole through and through, a single expression of his infinite wisdom and love.

This gives us a new and wider perspective from which to consider the existence of God. Not only do we have data from science to consider, but also evidence from the events of history and the development of the Judaeo-Christian religion over thousands of years. This religion is uniquely a religion based on development, looking forward to the ultimate purpose of the universe—the coming of Jesus Christ, both 2000 years ago, and at the end of time. Although this pamphlet has only offered the most fleeting glimpse of the fuller unfolding of this plan, it is enough to point the way. We can see that this fuller plan will complete in a wonderful way the beginnings we have studied here from science. And this gives us even stronger conviction that our world has meaning and purpose, because it was created by God, to find fulfilment in God.

By looking at the world, we have discovered its Maker. By listening to his Word we will discover his truth and his love.

1 Davies, P., The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning, Simon and Schuster Ltd 1992, Penguin 1993, p. 170-171.

2 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, Longman 1986, Penguin 2000, p. 173.

3 Hawking, S. W., A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam 1988, p. 174.

4 Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 175.

5 There is more to say about the evolution of human beings, since we have bodies which have evolved, and souls which are directly created by God. This will be discussed more deeply in the next pamphlet in this series: What makes Man Unique?

6 Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. xvi.

7 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 289, says that the first three chapters of Genesis “express in their solemn language the truths of creation”. In a similar vein, para. 390 teaches that “the account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man”.

8 The question of how to interpret the Bible is a complicated one. Ultimately, it is the Church which has the

authority to interpret it authentically, through Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit. See the pamphlet in this series,

The Church: Christ’s Voice to the World.

9 Davies, The Mind of God, p. 195.

www.faith.org.uk

Table of Contents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9