The Core Problems We Face

Our country is in trouble.  Though we have made many significant advances, such as in the areas of racial and gender equality, not to mention technology,  I would suggest that the following represent critical reasons for why the United States of America has a worrisome future.

(1) Moral decay. 50 years ago, the top problems in schools were: talking to friends during class, passing notes, chewing gum, cutting in line, running in the halls, being late for class, littering and dress code violations. Today, the top problems in schools are: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse, theft, assault, verbal and physical abuse toward educators, rape and murder. 50 years ago it was scandalous for Elvis to wiggle his hips on television. Today, there are tons of *commercials* that would have been considered pornographic or extremely violent - not fit for the public airwaves - had they been even considered back then.

(2) A sense of entitlement. We used to be a nation of people that took their freedom seriously and went on the government dole only as a last resort. Today, if people aren't getting their contraceptives covered by their insurance, or by government, people practically revolt in the street. What used to be a temporary safety net is now seen by many as an unalienable right. More people do not pay any taxes, but receive from the government, than pay into the system. We have become a nation of receivers, not of contributors. This sense of entitlement extends to the notion that anyone who has more than us is "greedy" and that we "deserve" some more of what they have (why, exactly, we deserve it is a mystery). So politicians play to this sense of envy and entitlement, and whenever someone points out that the system is unsustainable, they cry "they're trying to take away your... (medicare, social security, welfare, unemployment check....insert entitlement X here)!!!"

(3) Utter, catastrophic, fiscal irresponsibility. It is absolutely stunning how politicians don't think twice about spending billions (and trillions) of dollars without any regard for how we are going to pay for it. Either we just borrow more or print more money, but either way we go deeper and deeper into debt. To satisfy the electorate (which, based on point (2) above, feels *entitled* to that money, and heck, most people now don't pay into the system so it's not an added burden on them), politicians satisfy short-term desires at the expense of long-term wisdom. At this rate we *WILL* crash. It is inescapable. There is no free lunch, yet politicians treat our money as if there is. And when people suggest cutting the budget they are called "draconian" - a classic scare tactic.

(4) Desiring security over freedom. We used to be a nation of freedom, which meant that you are free to make good - or bad - choices. You lived with the consequences of your choices. Today, people don't want freedom if it comes with risk. It is absolutely better for people if they could take every dime that is taken from them and put into FICA and they invest it themselves. Even a basic, completely guaranteed, government bond would give them a better result than Social Security. But people don't want that freedom because it *might* come with risk. When they take out a bad loan and foreclose, they expect the government to bail them out. When they take out humongous student loans to go into fields that really don't pay, and they wonder how they are going to pay those loans back, they want the government to forgive the rest of the loan (hence the cheering when Obama proposed this recently). We prefer to have an incredibly invasive TSA agent probe down our pants because we want to be super safe when we fly. I understand why we want security. But freedom does come with risks. You're a kid and you want to learn how to ride your bike. Well, riding the bike brings about the potential to fall and scrape your knee. But people want to be able to ride their bike without fearing the fall.

(5) Groupism instead of nationalism. We are a nation of groups now, not a unified nation. Everyone has their own ethnic qualifier. We are no longer a melting pot. When my grandfather came here from Italy, he chose to not speak Italian in his house (which is a bummer for me since it meant that I never learned Italian in the home, but oh well). Why? Because he said, this is America, and here they speak English. If I'm going to be an American, I'm going to become part of this culture. Now, people have as their primary identity their cultural heritage, not the nation we live in. Instead of, I'm an AMERICAN, it's, I'm an X-American. There is no unity, only a collection of disparate groups. It's hard to build a nation when the people don't primarily identify with that nation.

(6) The breakdown of the family. The family is the most important building block of any society, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the family goes to pot, the nation will soon follow. I could sit here all day and cite statistics and studies but the bottom line is that most marriages fail, a HUGE number of kids (especially in minority groups) are born out of wedlock, and tons of kids grow up without knowing at least one of their parents. We are redefining marriage, we are watching celebrities glorify having kids out of wedlock, we are promoting a "new normal" as if it is a good thing.  The nuclear family is vital to a flourishing society and we seem hell-bent on destroying it.

We have other issues besides these, of course.  But I see them as the six biggest societal problems we face today.  The solutions are there, but they are unpopular.  As a result, they will probably never happen.  But we cannot get our nation squared away if we are not willing to face the problems.

I would invite feedback as to what other major problems you think we have as a nation.

Christians and Chick-fil-A

The recent firestorm surrounding Chick-fil-A and owner Dan Cathay has got me (and a lot of other people) thinking. Primarily, I'm wondering about the role of Christianity in a non-Christian, secular, or multicultural and multi-religious, society. And what is the role of Christians themselves in such a society?

There are a couple of points that need to be made off the top. First, Christians are called to be Christians, fully. Not "Sunday-Christmas-Easter" Christians. Not "when it's convenient for me" Christians. Fully Christian. This means loving the Lord and taking seriously what He says in His Word (see my post about being a Bible-believing Christian....there can be no other kind), and seeking to live out a life of following Christ. And that needs to happen even when God instructs us to do things that run counter to the culture.

But second, the society we live in is not a Christian society. There may have been some Christian roots to our nation and our founding fathers, but let's be real: they weren't all true believers. But regardless, today, in 2012, this is most definitely not a Christian civilization.

So how are Christians to live in a non-Christian, secular society? How are we to live out our faith in a society that increasingly disdains Christianity?

You know, we're not the only Christians to face such a situation. The earliest believers living throughout the Roman Empire faced something similar. They lived in a very diverse, pagan world. Though there was an Emperor, they still had elected representatives (the vestiges of the Republic remained). There was one overarching civil government throughout the empire, though the empire was divided up into provinces (think: large states). This one governmental system and set of Roman values pervaded the entire empire, and elements of Roman civilization were evident everywhere, and yet the empire itself was very diverse and multicultural. Within the empire you had people from Britain, Gaul, Germania, Turkey, Israel, and even Africa.

If you look at how Christians lived in such a society, it could be summed up in a few phrases. First, they were faithful to the Lord. Even non-Christians in that time noticed that. Here's a quote from Pliny, a Roman historian, regarding the early Christians:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

And Lucian of Samosata (a Greek satirist) commented, "The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."

Notice that?  The Christians met together, worshipped God, and committed themselves to live out the calling to which they had been called.  Other people noticed their faithfulness to God and His teachings.  Oh that Christians today would be so faithful!!

Second, they were eager to spread the Word of God.  Tacitus wrote of Christians, "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome."

You see?  The gospel spread at the hands of believers.  Of course Tacitus, who wasn't exactly a fan of Christianity or Christians, called it a "superstition", but he did point out that it grew throughout the empire.  In a pagan, unbelieving world, Christians are to spread the Word.

Third, Christians stood firm on their faith, even in the face of intense persecution.  History records massive persecutions under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Decius, Valerian, and others.  I have actually been inside some of the catacombs under Rome, and there were some 500,000 Christians buried there, many of whom were put to death for their faith in Christ.  It was an amazing experience, for sure, and it brought home just how committed these people were.  Despite all kinds of pressure from the government and from their society, Christians held firmly to what they believed, being willing to risk it all for the sake of Christ.

Now, despite the similarities, there was (at least) one major difference.  In Rome, Christianity was on the ascendency, rising up from its beginnings and gaining a foothold (and eventually, legal dominance) in the empire.  In the United States, Christianity is on the decline, going from a place of prominence to a place of increasing marginalization.  To Christians in Rome, it was "normal" for the pagan viewpoint to rule the day.  To Christians in the United States, it USED TO BE "normal" for Christian values to rule the day, and any move away from that certainly feels like we as a society are departing from Christianity.  And that makes a big difference.

But still, what if Christians simply lived out the values the Roman believers did?  What if we were simply faithful to Christ, eager to spread the Word, and firm in the face of trials and persecution?  What would that look like?

I think those are the questions we should be asking ourselves in 21st century America.  

A Gene for Sin?

We know that physical characteristics are inherited genetically. What about behavior? Can our behavior be genetically predisposed? Here is a list of some recent discoveries in this area.

In 2004, scientists discovered a gene that is associated with alcoholism. "A new study links a gene to alcohol addiction -- backing up a long-recognized pattern showing that alcoholism runs in families." (from: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene)

There appears to be a genetic predisposition towards lying, according to Dr. Charles Raison, a Psychiatrist at Emory University Medical School. "There is a type of extreme lying that does indeed appear to have a strong genetic component. Officially known as "pseudologia fantastica," this condition is characterized by a chronic tendency to spin out outrageous lies, even when no clear benefit to the lying is apparent." (from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/expert.q.a/01/12/hereditary.lying.raison/index.html)

In 2011 researchers discovered that there is a gene that impacts people's desire to stay in bed longer than other people. "Experts, who studied more than 10,000 people across Europe, found those with the gene ABCC9 need around 30 minutes more sleep per night than those without the gene." (from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15999489)

In 2010, ABC news reported on the discovery of a gene that triggers sexual "cheating" in relationships. "In what is being called a first of its kind study, researchers at Binghamton University, State University of New York (SUNY) have discovered that about half of all people have a gene that makes them more vulnerable to promiscuity and cheating." (from: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-discover-gene-responsible-cheating-promiscuous-sex-habits/story?id=12322891#.UAP87o5s_Do)

Just this year, scientists announced that gluttony is also triggered genetically. "A single gene's effect on the brain can result in non-stop eating, research has shown.

Scientists believe the "gluttony gene" may be responsible for cases of obesity caused by out-of-control appetite." (from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/gluttony-gene-may-be-behind-big-appetites-7576831.html)

There may also be a gene for violence, stealing, and vandalism. "The same genes that increased a person's likelihood of developing major depression and nicotine addiction were found in those who also had conduct disorder, like stealing, vandalizing, running away from home and fighting." (from: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Smoking-Depression-Violence-Stealing-Put-on-the-Same-Gene-60245.shtml)

So it appears that people who engage in what society would consider to be harmful (and what the Bible would consider to be sinful), have some basis in genetics. This may be surprising to many people, but it shouldn't be. Certainly there is a Biblical basis for even this understanding of human behavior. The Bible talks about how each of us inherit a sin nature that is passed down from Adam. Obviously the biblical writers knew nothing about DNA or genes, but they definitely did know that offspring take on the look (both physically and behaviorally) of their parents.


Michael Mangis, author of "Signature Sins", wrote, "Our families have the greatest influence on our development, including the development of our patterns of sin. Some people even assert that family curses are passed down along generational lines. The belief comes from Old Testament passages which say that God “punishes the children and their children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation” (Ex 34:7). I will leave that discussion to biblical scholars....Whether or not families inherit spiritual curses, it is obvious that patterns of sin are passed down through families. Everyone sins; but just as culture, ethnicity and gender steer our patterns of sin in particular directions, so do our families....In my work as a therapist, I am amazed at the intricate ways in which family patterns of sin haunt people, even without their knowledge. I have seen individuals have an extramarital affair, only to learn afterwards that a parent had an affair at the same age. Many parents lament that they replicate the unhealthy discipline habits of their own parents, despite all their promises to themselves that they would not repeat their parents’ mistakes." (from: http://www.crosswalk.com/family/parenting/like-father-like-son-confronting-generational-sins-11602622.html)



Now go back and look at the list of discoveries. We have: addiction (alcoholism), lying, sleeping longer (what the Bible might call being a sluggard), promiscuity, cheating, gluttony, violence, stealing, and vandalism. That's a pretty impressive list of negative characteristics. In fact, if most of us knew of a person who engaged in all these behaviors, we probably would consider that person to be a "bad person". The Bible certainly frowns on all of these and labels them as sinful. And society certainly doesn't think very highly of alcoholism, addiction, lying, cheating, stealing, etc., either. In other words, these are negative, destructive, "bad", sinful behaviors (not physical characteristics, but behaviors) that have a basis in one's genetic makeup.


So what do we do with this as a society? Do we let people steal and then simply say, hey, it's not my fault, I inherited this behavior? Do we see a husband cheat on his wife and then say, you know what, don't blame the guy, it's in his genes? Do we catch a kid cheating on a test and shrug it off, saying, the kid was genetically hard-wired to do that...nothing can be done? No, in each of these cases, even though we now know that there is a genetic predisposition towards these destructive and sinful behavior, we do everything we can to not honor these behaviors, to not encourage them, to not excuse them, but rather to help people to control them and, ultimately, change them. We want liars to become honest people. We want cheaters to become faithful. We want violent people to become peacemakers.


Here's the key: a genetic predisposition towards a behavior that is negative or harmful or sinful does not, in the Bible's view or in society's view, let a person "off the hook", so to speak. We have laws against many of these behaviors, we seek to reform people who engage in them, and we generally discourage them as much as possible. Certainly we don't cater to them or excuse them. We never let a person engage in these behaviors and allow them to simply say, hey, it's not a "choice" or a "lifestyle"...I was made this way.


As an article on the "cheat" gene says (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334932/The-love-cheat-gene-One-born-unfaithful-claim-scientists.html): "But those with a wandering eye cannot wholly blame their genes. Mr. Garcia, of the State University of New York, said: ‘The study doesn’t let transgressors off the hook. Not everyone with this ­genotype (genetic make-up) will have one-night stands or commit infidelity.’"


Just because someone has a genetically predisposed desire towards some behavior does not mean that they need to act on that desire. They still have choices to make. We all do. We cannot "blame" our poor choices on our genes. We cannot shrug off our behavior and say, "I was made this way." Every moment we face choices. Genes can help explain our desires, but in the end, we can still choose A or B. Let's have a proper understanding of the role of genetics in our moral choices. We can learn a lot about ourselves and others if we have a right perspective.

The Foundation and Purpose of American Government

Our nation celebrates its 236th birthday tomorrow, and it's a good time to reflect on the founding of our country.

Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to justify the secession of the thirteen American colonies from Great Britain.  In order for the colonies to break from the British crown, they had to give good reason for doing so.  Therefore, the leaders of the Continental Congress asked Jefferson to put together a document outlining their argument to the world.  Jefferson’s Declaration can be divided up into two main parts:  First, he laid out his thesis, and second, he gave evidence supporting his thesis.  Here is Jefferson’s argument, from the second paragraph to the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

            Simply put, here is Jefferson's argument:

1. All people are created with certain rights given by God.
2. Government exists for the expressed purpose of securing these rights.
3. Because government’s power exists in the people being governed, if the government fails to secure these God-given rights, the people have the authority – even the responsibility – to reject that government and institute new government.

Now the rest of the Declaration consists of a laundry list of grievances against King George III, in which Jefferson makes the case that indeed, the English monarch had failed miserably to ensure the basic, God-given rights of the colonists to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Like any good argument, the Declaration’s conclusion must arise from the validity of the premises.  Jefferson’s first three premises, then, form the very philosophical foundation of this great nation.  To be blunt, according to Jefferson, we exist as a nation today because God has created us with certain rights that no government has the authority to take away.  Ergo, the United States of America exists because of the unwavering theological beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

Where did Jefferson get his ideas from?  He was not, contrary to the opinions of some, an evangelical Christian.  He was really a Deist, but he nevertheless believed strongly in God and in His providence.  Four times Jefferson mentioned God in the Declaration, including the close where he expressed complete trust in God, to whom the signers had pledged their lives.

Jefferson’s notion of a divine order in government was not new.  In fact, the earliest pages of the Bible share the same perspective.  The book of Genesis tells the story of humanity, and it is worth giving a short summary of the events leading up to Chapter 9, where we see the first form of human government.

In chapters 1-2, Genesis outlines in broad strokes the creation of the world, life on earth, and, of course, mankind.  Men and women were created to be moral agents, capable of obedience or disobedience – good or evil.  They were accountable to their Creator, who laid down some simple rules for them to follow.

Chapter 3 marks the turning point in human history, as mankind rebelled against God and His authority.  From that moment on, human history is rife with conflict, war, and atrocity. 

Chapters 4-5 detail the early generations of people, and some of the advancements that were made, from agriculture to music to bronze and iron working.  But while the technology increases, morality decreases.  Men begin taking multiple wives and murder takes place.  Genesis 6:8 says, “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was continually evil.”  Finally, God decides that He has had enough, and He decides to start fresh with just Noah and his family left to propagate the human race.

Chapters 6-8, then, chronicle the Great Flood, by which God indeed gets a fresh start by wiping out life on earth and replenishing it after the flood.

Now, it is interesting to note that during the period during chapters 4-5, humans were governed directly by God.  It is only after the flood, in chapter 9, that we see the origin of human government.  After Noah and his family disembark from the ark, God makes a covenant with Noah in chapter 8, and in chapter 9, God institutes human government.  In verse 6, God says, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.”  In other words, if anyone takes an innocent life, it is the responsibility of men to seek justice and retribution.  Earlier, in chapter 4, God says only that vengeance shall be taken on those who might murder Cain.  But the post-flood declaration by God clearly shows that human beings were now responsible for administering justice amongst themselves.

Notice the reason why God instituted human government.  He knew that people would murder each other.  The primary responsibility of human government, then, is to protect innocent human life.  Life is a gift from God, and each person, because we are made in God’s image, has an inherent – a divine – right to live.  Only God has the authority to take that away.  The exception, of course, is when humans need to administer the just penalty for someone violating that law.  In that case, the person has forfeited his right to live because he has taken another’s life, and human government has the responsibility and the authority to take his life as the satisfaction of justice.

Jefferson’s words ring true to the Biblical text:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Life is the very first and most important right.  Government exists by divine decree to protect innocent human life.  When governments fail to do this, the people have a responsibility and right to rid themselves of that government and replace it with one that will be true to this divine decree.  In the words of Ronald Reagan, “It is the responsibility of the government, at point of bayonet if necessary, to see that every citizen gets their Constitutional individual rights and is not denied them by any group of individuals.”[1]

            Since 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled, in cases like Abington vs. Schempp, that government has no business even entertaining religious ideas in public life.  We have seen the courts rule that Christmas manger scenes in town squares violates the so-called separation of church and state.  When once American schools used the Bible as its primary textbook for educating students to read and write, they now force teachers who hold religious views to keep their holy books at home.  Frankly, God has become persona non grata in public schools and town squares. 

            It is difficult to reconcile the current state of American government with its founding philosophy.  Today, ruling after ruling takes us further away from our spiritual heritage and, in fact, the foundation upon which this nation was built.  As an analogy, we may look at the great Ivy League institutions like Harvard, for example.  Harvard was founded to be a missionary school.  In fact, its cornerstone has the mission of the university engraved on it, and it is clear that the founders’ intent was to train young men to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.  In the same vein, we can see how far down the slippery slope our government has tumbled.

            Consider these words from John Whitehead,

All states of the United States of America have expressed either in their preambles or the body of the state constitution itself dependence on God for their preservation and strength.  This biblical ideal was woven into these constitutions when the leaders of the different states were planning the structure of their civil governments.  Therefore, when the federal constitution was drafted, the principle of faith in God was presumed to be a universal for healthy civil government.”[2]

            Today, just the opposite view is taken.  Government has a constitutional obligation, so the argument goes, to distance itself from God.  Even the acknowledgement of religion is seen as being tantamount to an “establishment” of religion, and as such, is a violation of the first amendment.  In other words, the view our society takes today is that good, healthy government can only exist by being thoroughly secular. 

            Let us consider now the consequences of the modern view.  If government does not have exist by divine decree to secure the fundamental, God-given rights of people, then it must exist by human decree to serve the temporal, human-given rights of people.  These rights, of course, are by definition elastic.  If man is the originator of human rights, then those rights are not really “rights” at all.  They are privileges, given to people at the whim of those in authority at the time.  If rights aren’t God-given, then they are merely the preferences expressed either by political leaders or the majority of the population.  What, then, is to stop a government from changing certain “rights” as happen to suit its particular needs?  One day, you might have the right to a fair trial, but the next, the government may be executing even suspected criminals.  If certain fundamental rights do not come from God, then we have no recourse against such tyranny, whether it exists in the form of totalitarian dictatorships or democratic vote.  The logical consequence of the modern view is that our rights are gifts of the government, to be altered and twisted however the government (and/or the majority) sees fit.

            This sad truth is most evident today with respect to the first of Jefferson’s stated “inalienable” rights – the right to life.  Both the Declaration and Genesis declare that the primary right that government exists to secure is the fundamental right of innocent people to live.  If the right to life is not primary, then all other rights lose their significance.  After all, what good is the right to free speech if the next guy is equally free to kill you?  It is only because we have the right to live that we can even begin talking about these other rights.

            It is clear that our nation has drifted steadily, sometimes spectacularly, away from Jefferson’s expressed view.  Our rights are no longer seen as God-given and inalienable.  They are now seen to be the result of majority vote, which can be changed as the political winds dictate.  As a consequence, the government does not serve the purpose articulated by Jefferson – to secure these inalienable rights (that, of course, do not exist today).  Instead, government serves one purpose – to secure its own future.  This is admittedly a cynical view of things, but experience has shown that government is primarily interested in doing whatever it takes to consolidate its power.  Again, as Reagan has said, “Because no government ever voluntarily reduced itself in size, government programs once launched never go out of existence.  A government agency is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”[3]  Government seeks more and more power and control, and as it succeeds in this mission, it erodes the purpose for which it was founded in the first place.

            What should we do about this?  The only recourse the colonists saw was to rebel against a tyrannical monarch.  In the United States, we live in a republic, and as such, we have the right to rebel at the ballot box.  Every election cycle, we have the opportunity to revolt against a government that has clearly lost its way and has misused and abused its power.  We can restore our government to what it was originally created to do.

            I am not suggesting a theocracy.  Our government does not need to consist of all religious men and women, or follow word-for-word the pages of the Bible.  However, we have seen what has happened as our government has left its roots behind.  What we need is a return to the Jeffersonian principles on which this nation was founded.  In Jefferson’s own words, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”[4]

---

[1] Ronald Reagan, The Official Ronald Wilson Reagan Quotebook, Chain-Pinkham Books, St. Louis Park, MN, 1980, pg. 48.

[2] John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, Crossway Books, Westchester, IL, 1982, pg. 96.

[3] Ronald Reagan, The Official Ronald Wilson Reagan Quotebook, Chain-Pinkham Books, St. Louis Park, MN, 1980, pg. 28.

[4] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virgina, 1782.

Moral Relativism and God

Many people I speak with believe that morals are relative.  That is, that what's right and wrong varies depending on the person, culture, or situation.  What may be right for you in your situation may not be right for me in mine, or vice-versa.  This is such a common viewpoint that the preponderance of people that say they believe it may make one think that it's actually true.  After all, so many people can't be wrong about that, can they?

I would like to suggest that virtually nobody is a pure relativist.  Here's how we know this:  everyone says things like, "You shouldn't do that", or "He's wrong for saying that."  Even the most adamant moral relativist utters statements like this from time to time.  Often those statements are in the direction of Christians or other religious people - "He shouldn't be so judgmental!"  Moral relativists are often the first people in line to criticize moral objectivists.

But how can a moral relativist be critical of moral objectivists?  How can a person who claims to believe in moral relativism criticize someone else's morals?  It happens all the time.  It shows that such a person truly isn't a moral relativist, and here's why.  In order for Jack to criticize Bob, there needs to be a standard of morals that exists by which both Jack and Bob are bound.  If morals are truly relative, then all Jack can say to Bob is, "Well, I wouldn't do that, but if it fits your moral code, then by all means, have at it."  But that's not what Jack says to Bob.  Jack says, "You shouldn't do that."  And the minute he says that, he's pointing to a moral standard that applies to both Jack and Bob.

If Jack believes that there's a moral standard that applies to anyone else, then Jack is no longer a moral relativist.  He's a moral objectivist.

And we see this when it comes to individuals and when it comes to cultures.  It's easy to say that what's right for one culture isn't necessarily right for another, but then we can simply apply the Nazi test.  Were the Nazis justified in the slaughter of six million Jews?  After all, their culture said it was okay.  Or were the Americans justified in their enslavement of millions of Africans?  After all, their culture said it was okay.  Or are cultures today justified in their sex trafficking of minors?  After all, their culture says it is okay.

In all these cases the majority of so-called moral relativists would say that these cultures were/are not justified.  Buy why?  Because there's some larger moral standard at work here that binds all cultures to it.  And the self-proclaimed moral relativist knows it.

So we all believe in objective morality.  It's the only way we can ever say that something is "good" or "right" or "noble" or "wrong" or "evil" or "unjust".  It's the only way to place any sort of value statement on anything.  But what does this have to do with God?

If we all believe in moral objectivity (even though many people incorrectly claim they don't), where does moral objectivity come from?  Can it come from the individual?  No.  No individual can set the moral standard for everyone else.  What about society?  No.  The same principle applies.  Which culture's moral code is the truly "right" one?  We can vote on laws and rules but that doesn't mean that those laws and rules are objectively morally right (or wrong).  True objective morality must originate outside people.

But can it come from amoral nature?  No.  How can objective morality arise from amoral matter?  How can electrons produce genuine, objective "goodness"?  There must be a moral agent that is the source for objective morality, and if it isn't humanity, what is it?  Such a being has to exist independent of the material world.  In order for objective morality to exist, an objective moral lawgiver must exist, independent of the material universe.  Who could such a moral lawgiver be?  Well, like with the two previous posts, this isn't "proof" of God's existence, but it is important evidence suggesting it.

The Existence of Life on Earth: Evidence for God

In my previous post, I talked about how the existence of the universe itself is strong evidence for a Creator that transcends time and space. In this post, we'll look at how the existence of life on earth is also evidence for a Creator. Like in the previous post, I will deal with some science here, but entire volumes could be written (and have been written) on this subject in a much more detailed and technical fashion, so please consider this to be just a basic overview of the material.

Life exists on earth when at one point it did not. The question is: how did it get here? Either life arose by purely materialistic means or it was the product of some creative force. Nobel-prize winning scientist Christian de Duve writes,

"The thesis that the origin of life was highly improbable is demonstrably false. Life did not arise in a single shot. Only a miracle could have done so. If life appeared by way of scientifically explainable events, it must have followed a very long succession of chemical steps leading to the formation of increasingly complex molecular assemblages. Being chemical, those steps must have been strongly deterministic and reproducible, imposed by the physical and chemical conditions under which they took place."

De Duve states the options in a straightforward manner. Either life is deterministic, according to laws of physics and chemistry, or it is the result of a miracle. He offers a test to see which of these two choices is the most likely. If the origin of life is deterministic, then it should be possible to reproduce these steps in a lab, under the conditions supposedly existing at the time of the origin of life. In other words, we ought to be able to create life over and over again, if life began by normal chemical processes. In fact, for more than 60 years, scientists have been trying to solve the puzzle of how life began.

The first real attempt to produce proteins from inorganic matter took place in 1951 when Stanley Miller electronically charged an "atmosphere" consisting of methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and water. This atmosphere, proposed in 1924 by Russian biochemist A.I. Oparin, is called a reducing atmosphere. After a week or experimentation, Miller was pleased to find some amino acids, as well as some other building blocks of proteins, in the bottom of his apparatus. This experiment was hailed as a major break-through, because for the first time, we had been able to synthesize amino acids from inorganic compounds.

Unfortunately, this approach has several problems. The first involves the presupposed reducing atmosphere. Oparin believed that life could not begin naturally in an atmosphere containing free oxygen. As it turns out, he was correct. The chemical reactions necessary to produce amino acids always break down in the presence of free oxygen. If, therefore, free oxygen was present in the early atmosphere, then that would immediately kill the theory. It is curious to note that over the past ten years or so, much doubt has arisen over the validity of Oparin’s reducing atmosphere. Stanley Fox, who succeeded Miller, wrote, "The Urey-Miller experiment yielded amino acids under conditions then believed to be early geological. This belief has not stood the test of time."

The reason is simple. If free oxygen did not exist in the early atmosphere, then no ozone layer would have formed. Without an ozone layer, massive amounts of ultraviolet radiation would have poured down on the earth. Now, an H2O molecule is fairly easily split. The ultraviolet light would have broken that molecule up, creating hydrogen and - you guessed it - a lone, or "free" oxygen atom. John Horgan wrote in the February 1991 Scientific American that, "doubts have grown about …Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere by James C.G. Walker of the University of Michigan and others suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. Free hydrogen would have escaped into space." And, Horgan didn’t add, free oxygen would have remained in the atmosphere, thus throwing a monkey wrench into any natural origin of life process. So the reducing atmosphere required for the natural formation of life is highly questionable.

A second problem is that the kind of amino acids formed were insufficient for creating life. There are two types of amino acids, and their difference is subtle but important. Amino acids are three-dimensional molecules that take a particular chemical structure, called chirality. That is, they are arranged in certain three dimensional forms which reflect polarized light in different directions. The two kinds of amino acids are called dextro-rotary and laevo-rotary, or D- and L- type acids. Chemically, there is no difference between the two. The only difference is their three-dimensional configuration, seen only as light is passed through them. Why is this an important difference? It has to do with the connecting together of such acids. Try putting a left-handed glove on your right hand. It doesn’t fit together. Similarly, a D- amino acid does not "fit" with a L- amino acid. They cannot combine effectively. In fact, the introduction of even a single D- amino acid will render all L- amino acids useless.

As it so happens, all life-giving proteins exhibit L- amino acids only. It is unknown as to why there aren’t any D- amino acid chains used in the proteins of life, and for now it is unimportant. What we need to remember is that life employs strictly L- amino acids in forming proteins necessary for life. There is no natural process that would favor one form over another, since there is no difference, chemically speaking, between the two. Chemist A.E. Wilder-Smith wrote, "In order to obtain life-supporting protoplasm and vital proteins, a source of optically pure L- amino acids must be available. Mixtures of L- and D- forms do not provide this satisfactory source. Lightning and chance can, on principle, never produce only pure laevo-rotary forms; They produce racemates only - exactly 50% D- and exactly 50% L- forms - and are therefore unsuitable for life’s proteins."

Until we can discover a way to produce long chains of purely L- amino acids by chance, then there is positively no reason to believe that life arose naturally. There has been some recent research on meteorites that suggests that polarized ultraviolet may lead to favoring one form (L) over the other (D), but that research is hardly conclusive at this point. Reading articles on the subject, we see a lot of equivocal language: This "may" have occurred...it "seems" like...it "could" be the case.... That sort of thing.

The theory that life arose through these amino acids has not advanced very far despite its initial early promises from the Miller-Urey experiment. That has led some researchers to prefer a model whereby nucleic acids came first. DNA is far too complex on its own to have come into existence by the random assemblage of molecules, so scientists prefer an "RNA-world" hypothesis. That, too, has fallen on very hard times, and a recent article in Scientific American by Robert Shapiro has taken this view to task. Here are some quotes of his from that article (found here: Feb 2007 Scientific American):

"Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above."

And:

"Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life. Inanimate nature provides us with a variety of mixtures of small molecules, whose behavior is governed by scientific laws, rather than by human intervention."

And:

"The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck."

Here's the long story short: there have been some exciting advances in biogenesis research. But too often those exciting discoveries have led to a conclusion that is unwarranted - that we have a solution for the problem of the origin of life.  We don't.  And we're not even remotely close.  Again, as in the case with the existence of the universe, this doesn't constitute proof of God's existence, but it is highly suggestive.  The immense complexity and sheer number of things that had to go right under just the precise conditions in order for life to exist are staggering.  Our scientific research should continue.  But when the leading scientists in the field are using analogies like a golfer playing a round of golf and then looking to tell how his round went in purely naturalistic terms, or a gorilla typing out recipes, then it would appear that deDuve's challenge - at least at this point in our research - has been answered.  We do not have reproducible steps by which life arose.  That leaves the miraculous as the best current option.  

The Existence of the Universe: Evidence for God

In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton published the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in which he laid out the mathematical principles behind how bodies move about in space and time.  He also developed the laws of gravity, all of which paved the way for the modern era of physics and cosmology.  

Newton’s law of gravity was straightforward:  any two bodies will be attracted to each other.  The greater the mass, the greater the attraction.  An apple falls to the ground not because it must move “down”, but because gravity attracts the two bodies to each other.  Since the earth is far more massive than the apple, it does not move towards the apple; rather, the apple moves towards the earth.  The effect we see is that it “falls” to the earth.

Newton’s law of gravity applies to every single body in the universe, including stars and galaxies.  Newton asked himself why the universe does not collapse in on itself.  After all, every single star should be attracted to each other by gravity.  Why hasn’t this attraction pulled all the stars together?  

Albert Einstein’s equations of general relativity showed that there was an actual beginning to all space, matter, energy, and even time.  His predictions were substantiated in 1929, when Edwin Hubble made the discovery that the universe is indeed expanding. Hubble viewed what is called the “red shift” of stars.  Light is both a wave and a particle.  As a wave, it has a certain frequency, just like sound.  Low frequency light appears to us to be red, while high frequency is blue.  Hubble, by analyzing the electromagnetic spectrum of the light of the stars, determined that the stars’ light were moving from bluish to reddish, indicating a lower frequency.  

Now when a wave exhibits lower and lower frequency, that means that the object causing the wave is moving away (Doppler Effect).  You recognize this whenever a car passes you.  The increase in pitch is nothing more than the increase in frequency of the sound waves as the car gets closer, and the decrease in pitch after the car passes you is the decrease in frequency of the sound waves.  Similarly, when stars move away, the frequency decreases. 

Hubble recognized that the stars all over the universe are moving away from each other (and us) at tremendous speeds.  In 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) confirmed Hubble’s discovery.  In fact, the universe is expanding, but it is doing so at an ever decreasing rate.  These facts lead us to two inferences.

First, if you trace the expansion back in time, you can easily see that there must have been a point from which the expansion began.  That is, at some point, the universe existed as nothing more than an infinitesimal point (a mathematical point).  A mathematical point, if you recall, has no volume, no surface area - it is literally nothing.  The late astronomer Carl Sagan wrote,

Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened - the Big Bang, the event that began our universe.  Why it happened is the greatest mystery we know.  That it happened is reasonably clear.  All the matter and energy now in the universe was concentrated at extremely high density - a kind of cosmic egg, reminiscent of the creation myths of many cultures - perhaps into a mathematical point with no dimensions at all.^,

Second, the expansion happened at a much more rapid pace than it does now, since the expansion rate is decreasing presently.  There is one, and only one, phenomenon that exhibits both expansion and deceleration - an explosion.  When a hand grenade explodes, the casing of the grenade expands outward.  By way of contrast, an implosion is when something “expands” inward.  Not only does the grenade casing expand outward, but it does so at an ever decreasing rate.  Initially, the velocity of the shrapnel is very fast, but over time (granted, it is a very small amount of time) the rate decreases.

In other words, from pure nothingness, the universe exploded into existence.  But there is still one more interesting feature about this explosion into existence.  One of the fundamental properties of the universe is that we have one dimension of time.  Time moves inexorably forward.  Yet the Big Bang demonstrates that time once did not exist.  Physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose demonstrated in the early 1970's that the creation of time was in fact one of the consequences of the Big Bang theory.  Now, when it is shown that time itself actually began, that leads to some very interesting conclusions. 

At some point this essay was in your hands.  That means that it once was not in your hands.  In other words, there existed such a situation that this paper simply did not reside in your hands.  Now let us look at that from the perspective of the Big Bang.  If time actually began at the Big Bang, then it once was the case that time itself did not exist.  What are the implications of the non-existence of time?  It means that the creation event that began the universe originated beyond the boundaries of time - that it what theologians call transcendence.  Hawking writes,

Many people do not like the idea that time had a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible).  There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.

Notice what Hawking is saying.  The Big Bang demonstrates scientifically that the universe - time, space, matter, and energy - literally began in an instant from nothing.  This scientific data squares with the Christian concept of creation ex nihlo (out of nothing), as well as the existence of a transcendent Creator.  Furthermore, many people, because they did not feel comfortable with the theological implications, attempted to elude the Big Bang theory altogether.  The data, however, is simply too strong to escape the Big Bang.  But couldn't it be possible for the universe to have just come into existence randomly?  That could allow such skeptics a way out.  Unfortunately for them, no such mechanism exists whereby an entire universe can just "pop" into existence from pure nothingness on its own.

And there is still more.  Suppose, for example, that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the universe did happen to randomly come into existence.  What would that universe look like?  Here we must discuss the nature of the universe.  Does it exhibit order or disorder?  In 1961 physicist Robert Dicke recognized that life is possible in the universe only because of the special relationships between certain cosmological parameters.  This is called the Anthropic Principle.  Modern astrophysicist Hugh Ross has expanded on this theme.  There are some 44 parameters, such as the expansion rate of the universe, the velocity of light, the ratio of electron to proton mass, the decay rate of protons, and many more.  Interestingly, if any of these parameters were off by even a tiny bit (some of the parameters are precise to one part in 10 billion), then life would be impossible in the universe. Here are a few examples:

 The force of gravity

if larger:  stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly

     if smaller:  stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production

 The mass density of the universe

     if larger:  too much deuterium from the big bang; hence stars would burn too rapidly

if smaller:  there would be insufficient helium from the big bang; hence there would be too few heavy elements forming

 Uniformity of radiation

     if smoother:  stars, star clusters, and galaxies would never have formed

     if coarser:  the universe would by now be mostly black holes and empty space

 Polarity of the water molecule

     if greater:  the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist

     if smaller:  the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life to  exist; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

But, quite obviously, life does indeed exist.  The likelihood that all these precise parameters happened by chance is effectively nil.  Ross has calculated that the odds of life arising by purely natural processes are less than 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000}.  That is 10 to the power of 100 billion (or, 10 multiplied by itself 100 billion times).  To put it in perspective, there are “only” 10⁸⁰ elementary particles (protons, electrons, quarks, etc.) in the entire universe. The number 10^{100,000,000,000} is so big that it would take 15,000 Bibles just to write it out longhand!

Does the universe display order or disorder?  The answer is self-evident.  It exhibits not only small degrees of order; it exhibits unfathomable degrees of order.  

But what is the nature of an explosion?  Here is a simple experiment to try.  Place a stack of TNT next to a garage, then light it.  What happens?  Will the pieces disperse and form an organized structure, or will it result in complete disorganization and chaos?  Clearly, an explosion results in disorder, not order.  So how could an explosion have created a universe of such intricate order?  These facts have led many astrophysicists to the same conclusion made by Paul Davies, who conceded, "the impression of design is overwhelming."  And cosmologist Bernard Carr wrote,

One would have to conclude either that the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidences or that the universe was indeed tailor-made for life.  I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor!"

Those who oppose such conclusions have tried one of several courses.  First, perhaps the universe has always "bounced" from one Big Bang cycle to the next, for all of eternity.  If this is the case, then there would be no need to invoke a supernatural agent as the cause of it all.  But is this a legitimate possibility?  The answer is a resounding no, for the following reason:  The second law of thermodynamics tells us that systems move from order to disorder, unless there is an input of energy.  In any machine, the amount of energy output cannot be more than the energy input.  There are, after all, no perfect machines.  Any machine, therefore, costs more to operate, in terms of energy usage, than it produces.  The more efficient the machine, the better this ratio becomes.  

Now, if our universe is a perfect machine, than the "bouncing", or "oscillating" universe model could work.  However, even if the universe were 99.9% efficient, then eventually, the universe would stop bouncing.  Astrophysicists have calculated that the universe is not only not a perfectly efficient machine, it is far inferior to even the human body.  Therefore, the universe simply cannot have been oscillating through one Big Bang cycle after another forever.  This only pushes the problem back a step, because at some point, the universe must have actually begun from nothing.

A second option is one that renowned astronomer Carl Sagan tried:  

If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions.  What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang?  What happened before that?  Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing?  How does that happen?  In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing.  But this is mere temporizing.  If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from.  And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question.  Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

The problem with Sagan's reasoning is twofold.  First, his very own field - cosmology - has demonstrated that the universe actually began from nothing.  To say, "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed" is not particularly helpful, and it does not change the facts.  He knew that the universe has not always existed.  Second, he presumed that God is of the same "stuff" as the physical universe.  But such is not the case.  If space, time, energy, and matter actually began at the Big Bang, then the God who did the creating is not of the same "stuff", and is therefore not necessarily subject to the same laws of nature.  The physical universe was caused, but God certainly need not be.

A third option is one that is more common today, and it is the idea of what is called a multiverse.  A multiverse is essentially the existence of multiple, or even an infinite number of, universes.  The idea goes like this.

The odds of a universe arising by pure chance that would be of such nature that it could support life are vanishingly small – if there is only one chance to do it.  But what if there were more opportunities?  What if new universes are continually being spawned?  Given enough chances, even the most unlikely scenario would eventually arise.  In order to win the incredible odds and get a universe that “works” (i.e., supports life), you might need an almost infinite – yes, perhaps an actual infinite – number of universes.  And some, in fact, have proposed such a thing.

While it may solve the problem of a creator, a multiverse presents numerous other problems.  First, it is untestable.  A multiverse, by definition, is something beyond our own universe.  If it was connected to ours, then it would simply be part of our universe and not something else.  And scientists agree that anything beyond our universe is beyond our ability to test.

Second, a multiverse would require a more fundamental set of physical laws which spawns new universes.  Think of a seemingly random set of 1,000 letters.  How did they get there?  If there is a program that says to produce 1,000 letters at random, the letters could be produced.  Consider this explanation by Max Tegmark, of MIT:  

A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long.

Do you see what the problem is here?  An algorithm is a program that is designed.  It may be simple, but it is nonetheless orderly.  To solve the problem of an incredibly orderly physical universe by proposing a larger, orderly, physical multiverse that has the capacity to produce ours is to beg the question of the origin of the multiverse.  The argument hasn’t advanced at all.

A third problem with the multiverse idea has to do with the concept of an actual infinite number of universes.  Physicist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University argues that, “With an infinite number of universes, all possible arrangements of space, matter and time will occur an infinite number of times.”

Now, let’s think for a moment what this means.  Vilenkin writes, “A striking consequence of the new picture of the world is that there should be an infinity of regions with histories absolutely identical to ours.  That's right, scores of your duplicates are now reading copies of this article. They live on planets exactly like Earth, with all its mountains, cities, trees and butterflies. There should also be regions where histories are somewhat different from ours, with all possible variations.”  

But if this is so, the number of sheer contradictions are also infinite.  For example, there would be a universe where the non-existence of the multiverse that spawned it would be true.  Moreover, there would be a world where time would run backward.  There would be a world where all the miraculous things that Biblical skeptics have argued cannot happen (such as Jesus rising from the dead, for example) all do, in fact, happen.  As such, there is literally nothing that would be out of bounds from a scientific or philosophical perspective.  

I have one more thought on the idea of a multiverse, related to this concept of a literal infinite number of combinations of physical laws, and arrangements of matter.  Let me offer a simple illustration to clarify the point.  Imagine a six-sided die.  If you roll numbers 1-5, various universes pop up, all looking a little different.  But if you roll a six, that is the “death roll,” meaning that you’ve hit a combination that kills the entire game.  If you roll the die one time, the odds are good that you’ll hit a number other than six, and the game can continue.  If you roll it six times, it’s even money that one of those rolls will produce a six, but those odds could be beaten and you may not roll a six.  If you roll it a hundred times, the odds shrink that you’ll somehow miss a six, but it’s still possible.  This could continue with more rolls, and as the number of rolls increases, the odds of avoiding the death roll continue to shrink.

But if you roll the die an infinite number of times, you’re guaranteed to hit a six eventually.  But what happens when you hit a six?  The game is over instantly.  And when that happens, you haven’t actually rolled it an infinite number of times; you’ve simply rolled it an awful lot of times, but it is nevertheless a finite number.

If Vilenkin is correct, and the existence of a multiverse necessarily implies an actual infinite number of universes, then eventually, the multiverse will hit the death roll, and the entire game is over; the multiverse will have hit upon a combination of physical laws and arrangements of matter that kills the entire process, and it will stop producing more universes.  But when that happens, there are no more universes being produced.  

The fact that we are here is proof that the death roll has not yet occurred, which proves that there are not a literally infinite number of universes out there.  In fact, there cannot ever be an infinite number of universes because one of those universes would destroy the multiverse outright.  Thus, Vilenkin and the multiverse theory is necessarily wrong, and we are back to the question of what created an orderly, yet finite, universe out of nothing.

Let me sum up what I have learned and attempted to convey.  The universe once was a mathematical point - in other words, it had no volume and no surface area.  From this mathematical point (nothingness), the universe and all its dimensions (time, length, width, and height) exploded into existence, forming an intricately balanced and orderly universe, perfectly fit for life.

That is the science behind the Big Bang.  These are not the conclusions of theistic philosophy.  Those are the raw facts.  Now, let’s take a moment to consider the ramifications of these facts.  First, the universe must have been created by something outside the universe itself.  In other words, the universe, which at one point did not exist, could not therefore have created itself.  This “creator” might or might not have been God, but there had to have been some creative force.  

Second, the creator had to exist outside the boundaries of the universe.  In other words, the creator has to be able to operate outside the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time that is our universe.  This is what transcendence means.

Third, the creator had to be extremely intelligent in order to finely tune the universe with such intricate order.  And fourth, the creator had to be incredibly powerful in order to make this all work.

So we see that the Big Bang itself has pointed us to a creator that is powerful, intelligent, and transcendent.  Christianity has a name for such a creator:  God.  Many scientists, of course, choose to reject this logical conclusion of the data, but they have nothing else to put in the creator’s place.  In conclusion, let me quote astronomer Robert Jastrow, who writes, 

This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians.  They have always accepted the word of the Bible:  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth….For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.  He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.