When people find out I am a pretty recent convert, they often ask me why I converted. The answer has mostly to do with a heart-changing experience with the Holy Spirit. But there is another point that bears considering: before I became a member of the church I rarely spent much time thinking about the Big Questions.
One of the most important, of course, is: why do we exist? Why are we here and what is our purpose?
To answer this, we must first define what “here” means. The largest definition is “the universe.” The universe was either created by a supreme being with extreme intelligence or it developed randomly by chance. There are no other possibilities. If you believe that some intelligence created the universe, you, therefore, believe in some kind of God.
What are the chances that our universe was created by accident?
The more scientists ponder this issue the more convinced they become that the chances are miniscule, approaching zero.
A fascinating recent article in Wired magazine notes that scientists are increasingly turning to theologians and philosphers to get answers to the Big Questions. Pure science, it seems, is not the objective reality many of its high priests claim. Some of the most forward-thinking scientists admit they simply don’t have enough information to back up the often-repeated claim that science can declare victory over superstitious thinking linked to religion.
To quote the article: “In recent years, Allan Sandage, one of the world’s leading astronomers, has declared that the big bang can be understood only as a ‘miracle.’ Charles Townes, a Nobel-winning physicist and coinventor of the laser, has said that discoveries of physics ‘seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law.’ Biologist Christian de Duve, also a Nobel winner, points out that science argues neither for nor against the existence of a deity.” (Note 1)
This article was truly groundbreaking. It appeared in one of the most cutting-edge modern publications and quoted some of the leading scientists of our day. And of course this only scratches the surface on the changes going on in the scientific world regarding religious thought.
For years, the world’s greatest sophisticates loved to point out how our existence was simply a result of fickle chance. The universe, they said, accidentally came into being and so did we humans. But some of the best scientists are now beginning to realize that such “advanced” thinking is remarkably short-sighted.
Dr. Hugh Ross in his book “The Creator and the Cosmos” compares the accidental creation of our universe to the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft being completely and flawlessly assembled as a result of a tornado striking a junkyard. If just one material was wrong, the whole “aircraft” would fall to pieces. In fact, the universe was created with just the right materials at just the right time.
Ross describes 35 scientific parameters for the universe to exist. For example, if the gravitational force were larger, stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and if it were smaller stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite. Ross says the only reasonable conclusion is that somebody must have planned the construction the universe. (Note 2)
Paul Davies went from promoting atheism to concluding that “the laws [of physics]…seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.” Davies went on to say: there “is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.” (Note 3)
I can come to only one conclusion: the universe exists because a Creator created it. I am “here” in this universe because this Creator put me here. Then, I must ask, how did I become a human being on this Earth.
What are the chances that I accidentally evolved from some lower organism in a primordial soup without the involvement of this Creator?
I have some serious reservations about the theory of evolution. Given the two choices of the Biblical accounts (with additional knowledge from modern-day revelation) and evolution, I continue to choose the former. But a majority of scientists today don’t agree with me and stick to evolution. Fine, let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that evolution is correct. Then, what are the chances that it took place without a Creator’s involvement? An increasing number of scientists are beginning to recognize the chances of evolution without the involvement of a supreme being are miniscule, approaching zero.
Dr. Jerry R. Bergman, a biologist, points out that the body has an estimated 75 trillion cells. How long would it take for these cells to be assembled in their current shape randomly? The amount of time approaches infinity, considerably longer than the existence of the Earth. His conclusion: “Complex ordered structures of any kind (of which billions must exist in the body for it to work) cannot happen except by design and intelligence.” (Note 4)
Molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated that if you were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond with it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal nautral conditions would be one in 10 to the 100,000,000,000. Again, the Earth has not existed long enough for those chances to bear fruit. (Note 5)
Geneticist James A. Allan points out that for man to accidentally evolve from apes, an awful lot of mutating, genetic drift and natural selection had to have taken place. At the very least, the earth would have needed a pool of 150 billion pre-humans. The fossil record indicates there were probably no more than a few million pre-humans, far fewer than the pool necessary to provide for accidental evolution without divine guidance. (Note 6)
The more honest evolutionists know this. Given the limited amount of time that the Earth has existed, they know it is not reasonable for them to suppose that we human beings, with all of our complexities, randomly came about. So many of them recently have begun to speculate about asteroids or space ships with advanced life forms crashing onto Earth millions of years ago. Is that any more wild or far-fetched than believing in God?
What are the chances that God’s chosen people would end up in the center place of the world by complete accident?
Look at a map of the world. There are several large land masses. Israel’s location is extraordinarily coincidental. It is at the center of three huge land masses, Europe, Asia and Africa. The Americas are noticeably separate, as are the Pacific Islands and Australia.
Jerusalem is at the center of this center place, in the middle of the mountains that make up the spine of Israel. Hmmm. Father Abraham, who started the world’s three most influential religions, was told his future generations would own this center place. The geography is all extraordinarily purposeful, as if some intelligence designed it that way.
What are the chances of the Jewish people being restored to Israel, just as was predicted in the Bible?
The next time somebody asks you how you can believe the Bible, challenge the religious skeptic to carefully read Deuteronomy chapters 27-32. It won’t take long for the skeptic to read these chapters, perhaps a half-hour. What will our skeptical friend find?
Moses wrote in about 1500 BC.
He was about to be taken from the Earth, and he wanted to give his people a lasting message. Remember, Moses had taken them out of Egypt and led them for 40 years through the desert. Of course, the people had spent 40 years murmuring. And now Moses was going to leave them, but he had been given a vision of what would happen to the House of Israel.
If Israel followed the ways of God, they would be blessed, Moses said. But then Moses went on and on for pages about the horrible things that would happened to the people of the covenant if they didn’t follow God’s way. The writing is purposeful, as if Moses could see us in the latter days and was explaining to us exactly how the House of Israel ended up suffering for so long. But he was curiously doing this from the perspective of 1500 BC.
Moses knew that the people of Israel would not follow the ways of God (he had, after all, gotten to know their rebellious ways after spending the last 40 years with them). And he predicted exactly what will happen to them: “The Lord shall bring thee…unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there thou shalt serve other gods, woods and stone. And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee.” (Deut. 28:36-37). How could Moses have predicted by accident that the people of Israel would be led away to Babylon and forced to worship false gods?
But Moses goes on and describes events a few hundred years later. He describes a nation coming “as swift as the eagle flieth” (Deut. 28:49) that would “besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down.” (Deut. 28:52). During the siege, people would “eat the flesh of thy sons and daughters” (Deut. 28:53). What could better describe the overthrow and occupation of Israel by the Roman eagle? How could Moses have made the specific prophecy that the Israelites would be forced during the long siege of Jerusalem to resort to the horrible cannibalism involving parents eating their own children?
And then what happened to the house of Israel? “The Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other…and among these nations shalt thou find no ease…and they life shall hang in doubt before thee…in the morning thou shalt say, would God it were even! And at even thou shalt say, Would god it were morning!” (Deut. 28:64-67). What better description could Moses have come up with for the fate of the House of Israel after the destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century AD? How more completely could he have described their loss as they suffered through pogrom after pogrom until the ultimate horror of the Holocaust in Europe during World War II?
During the absence of the House of Israel, the land would decline, Moses predicts: “the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning…and all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land?” (Deut. 29:23).
But then the people of Israel will miraculously be gathered again to their homeland: “the Lord will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations…and the Lord they God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it.”(Deut. 30:3-5) Isn’t this exactly what is happening today with the amazing foundation of the state Israel and the restoration of the gospel? We are living in the middle of a prophecy made 3500 years ago.
What are the chances of this happening by accident? How could it be pure coincidence that the one people whom the Bible predicts will spend 3500 years rebelling, being scattered across the globe and then gathered again to Israel actually go through this historical cycle? Think of all of the peoples that have existed in the world. None of them has had a history as long-lasting and unique as the House of Israel. Many empires have been prophecied (think, for example, of Hitler’s thousand-year reich that ended up lasting 12 years), but only one prophecy anything close to the one predicted in the Bible has actually come true.
It is worth noting that the Book of Mormon describes this same prophecy in different ways, as do many of the other Old Testament prophets, especially Isaiah.
What are the chances that the Messiah described in the Old Testament (and the Book of Mormon) is NOT Jesus Christ?
Some theologians have counted more than 100 distinct prophecies regarding the Messiah referred to in the Old Testament. These prophecies run the gamut from the simple, such as Psalm 22:1, in which the Messiah says “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me,” to the complex, such as Isaiah 53:3-5, which describes many distinctive characteristics of the Messiah.
What are the chances that one man could fulfill all of these prophesies? Approaching zero. What are the chances that this same man could fulfill all of these prophesies and also describe himself as the Son of God? You get my point.
What are the chances that this Jesus was anybody but who he said he was? C.S. Lewis puts forth an argument that is irrefutable. What can you say about a man who goes around claiming to be the son of God? There are only two possibilities. Either he is truly the son of God or he is deluded/crazy/evil.
So, let’s say this person, this historical Jesus, was deluded/crazy/evil. Why did he say such wonderful things, things that even the most cynical secularist admits are the foundation of a beautiful philosophy? Why did he commit such wonderful acts of charity and kindness?
If Jesus were simply another philosopher, he would not have acted as he did and said the things he did. Yet many people are quick to praise Jesus’ philosophy without looking at the entire picture. Jesus committed wonderful acts of charity and said wonderful things. But he also clearly said he was the son of God and predicted he would die and be resurrected again three days later. You cannot on the one hand praise the man’s philosophy and deny the very essence of what he said he was. Jesus was either deluded/crazy/evil, or he was the son of God. There is no other possibility, and lame attempts to make him into a harmless philosopher like Gandhi simply don’t make sense. You must take a stand on the whole issue of who Jesus was, and you must fall into one of two camps. And if you look at the evidence, you can only come to the conclusion that he was just who he said he was.
What are the chances the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith?
To paraphrase the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley in October’s conference, the Christian world has a lot of explaining to do by not accepting the Book of Mormon. The very existence of this book is something that most Christians refuse to deal with. In the space of about two months, the uneducated Joseph Smith produced a 531-page tome that is filled with ineffable complexities.
How do you explain the chiasmus in the book, the Hebrew-like phrases, the details of Arab lifestyle about which Joseph Smith never could have guessed?
Then there are the little details of authenticity: obscure Arabian locations whose names still exist today, mentions of horses in the ancient American world when “everybody” in the 1820s knew the Indians didn’t have horses (but now we know through archeological finds that they did), names such as “Alma” that Joseph Smith would never have invented on his own. Then you’ve got the nagging issue of the 11 other people who saw the plates. How could the impoverished Joseph Smith have gathered the gold (and the materials in which to implant false runes on these plates) to fake the discovery of these plates for the 11 witnesses, all of whom signed their names on the front of the Book of Mormon and never, despite huge financial incentives, recanted their testimonies? Speaking of faking it, how did Joseph Smith fake the arrival of an angel for three of the witnesses?
I have read many, many anti-Mormon tracts, and none of them come up with a satisfactory answer for these issues. There is only one explanation for the Book of Mormon that makes sense: it was translated by one extraordinary young man who was inspired by God, just as he said he was.
What are the chances that it’s all a fraud?
To paraphrase President Hinckley in October’s conference again, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is either true or it’s a massive fraud. Its claims are not mild and easy to digest, like many other churches that are filled with non-threatening theological platitudes. It’s a rather demanding church, both in terms of time and activities, and in terms of intellectual energy.
From my perspective, the central claim is this: God wants you to draw closer to Him by joining the church. There’s not much room for compromise (although God gives you complete freedom to make the decision on your own). But there is only one way into the Kingdom of God for this generation, and it leads through the church.
I could go on and on for pages about why the church is not a fraud, but let me just mention a few that stand out:
Temples: why is it that no other church has gotten its arms around the issue of saving all of the billions of people who were born without getting a chance to hear the gospel? If the gospel is true and God is God, wouldn’t he want all of his children to get a chance to be saved? Only we Mormons seem to have an answer to this particular conundrum.
The Lost Ten Tribes: the Bible says they are carried off to the north, and then they disappear from history. Huh? Why are we the only church talking about their eventual return?
The priesthood: I have no clue how anybody can read Hebrews in the New Testament and not ask, “what’s all this stuff about the Melchezidek priesthood and why don’t any churches have it?” One church does.
As I said, I could go on and on, but suffice to say that frauds are usually a lot easier to detect than this.
What are the chances I, a church member, am deluded/crazy/evil?
Almost four years ago, I had a life-changing experience with the Holy Spirit that moved me from religious skeptic to, some would say, religious fanatic. It was in fact a change to You can read about it here.
There are several possible explanations for these types of religious experiences. But they all get around to one of two possibilities: I am either deluded/crazy/evil or I really had a supernatural experience.
Now the good thing about being deluded/crazy/evil is that you never notice it. All deluded/crazy/evil people think they are perfectly fine, and so do I. So, it’s very hard for me to know if I really am deluded/crazy/evil. But the funny thing is that all the people I know keep on telling me how nice and sane I am (maybe they’re just trying to humor me and keep me harmless). In fact, I had a lot more people tell me I was deluded/crazy/evil before my religious conversion than now. So, the only conclusion I can come to is that I am not, in fact, deluded/crazy/evil. That only leaves one other possibility: I really did have a supernatural experience.
I had an incredible, breath-taking experience that made me understand that our Father in Heaven has a vast plan and that I play an important part in this plan. He created the universe and this Earth for a reason. He sent me to Brazil and helped me learn the language and gave me the time and skills to perform my duties here so I would have something to contribute. It was not accidental. It is part of a deliberate scheme in which I am a small but essential player.
What are the chances something so wonderful could be done without Him? None. So I must recognize Him and love Him and thank Him.
Thank you, Father, thank you for your magnificent creation and for caring enough about me to allow me to participate in it. My cup runneth over with love for thee.
Notes
Note 1: “The New Convergence,” Wired Magazine, By Gregg Easterbrook, December 2002.
Note 2: “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (NavPress, 2001)
Note 3: References are Paul Davies, “God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, pp 3-42, 142-143; Paul Davies, “Superforce” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243; Paul Davies, “The Cosmic Blueprint” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), p. 203)
Note 4: “In Six Days,” edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000).
Note 5: “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (NavPress, 2001)
Note 6: “In Six Days,” edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000), p. 131
