Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
God vs. Absurdity
God vs. Absurdity
Mar 17, 2025 10:27 AM

There have been many attempts to prove the existence of God and disprove a sui generis universe in which sentient life is a mere accident of the Big Bang. A new book offers some fresh insights into why theism is a better explanation than naturalism for understanding reality, including the ability to do science.

Read More…

“In fact, the fundamental claim of this book is that if one believes the world actually is intelligible—that things make sense, and ultimate explanation can be had—then God exists.” This is the provocative thesis of philosopher and writer Pat Flynn, whose new book, The Best Argument for God, insists that the real philosophical dilemma we face is not between theism and atheism but between theism and absurdity, or a reality that is utterly unintelligible.

To make his case, Flynn first offers some preliminary remarks about philosophy and science. Many people today believe that science is our most reliable method for arriving at certain knowledge, and that if something cannot be proved scientifically, its truth claim is questionable at best. There are problems, however, with this attitude. For one thing, the belief that science is our most certain source of verifiable knowledge cannot itself be proved by science since no scientific experiment could ever demonstrate it. It is therefore a philosophical posture posing as a scientific one. Furthermore, science itself rests on philosophical foundations (contra the objections of some pop scientists).

Consider, for example, that science can investigate the occurrence of change, such as ice melting, leaves falling, or animals digesting, to discover the physical processes that cause these material changes, but it cannot tell us what the nature of change is. In other words, science presupposes the reality of change to get off the ground—for without change there would be neither physical processes nor causes for scientific inquiry to examine—but it cannot tell us what logical categories are needed to make sense of what change is or how it is possible. Philosophy, however, can.

In fact, making sense of change was a major dilemma in early Western philosophy, when Parmenides argued that change was simply an illusion (which would, of course, destroy science), and Heraclitus instead contended that there was no stability, that everything existed in a state of constant flux. It was Aristotle who solved the puzzle by distinguishing between “potential being” and “actual being,” and by recognizing that “form” and “matter” are two irreducible categories of the natural world (known as hylomorphism).

That, however, is a story for a different day. The point for now is simply that philosophy considers the most general features of reality, features that science must take for granted before it can even get started. As Flynn puts it, “Philosophers latch onto and subsequently analyze experiential features of the world that are so broad that they cannot be coherently called into question and must therefore be considered pre-scientific. Philosophers work with experiences the denial of which would make science itself impossible.”

For instance, the denial of change not only makes scientific investigation impossible but also is self-refuting. After all, to deny change first requires formulating the relevant thought and then expressing that thought, which involves the mind and the body moving through a sequence of changes. So if change is undeniable, how do we make sense of it? Seeking an answer has led a great many philosophers down the ages to theism. This is because, as the thesis of Flynn’s book mitment to plete explanation, or to an answer that is fully intelligible, must itself transcend the category of change altogether. In other words, whatever explains change must itself be unchanging, which makes it unlike anything we experience and therefore radically unique.

Furthermore, when we consider other fundamental features of reality, such as “contingency” (the fact that things in the world depend on other things for their existence) and the nature of existence itself, every ultimate explanation necessarily terminates in an unchanging and necessary being who, upon analysis, must be one, simple, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect or fully good, omniscient, and omnipotent. While space constraints prevent drawing this out here, readers will find a robust defense of it in the book, through both traditional lines of analysis concerning God’s existence (or what is sometimes called “cosmological” reasoning) and the more modern parison” approach, pares theism to “naturalism” (i.e., atheism) to show why theism better explains reality.

Of course, as Flynn points out, anyone can dig in their heels and refuse mit to pushing ultimate explanations as far as possible, which will of course prevent a theistic conclusion. Doing so, es at a heavy cost. To see this, consider the most fundamental question he explores in the book: the nature of existence, or why there is something rather than nothing. As he catalogs, there are essentially three answers to that question. The first is that there is something unique that explains why anything, including the universe and everything in it, exists. This he labels the “further story” account. The second answer is that there is nothing unique that explains why we exist. Things have simply always existed and that is all. This he calls the “same story” account. Finally, there is the denial that there can ever be an answer to the question in the first place. This he calls the “no story” account. According to this explanation, the universe just “is” and that’s all we can say.

Flynn, of course, defends the “further story” account throughout the book, which builds on the metaphysical tradition of philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, while also incorporating insights of other thinkers, including genuine insights of his own. But one way he defends his thesis is by exposing the price one must pay for accepting either the “same story” or the “no story” account for the existence of the universe. For instance, if the universe just exists and that is all we can say, it is what philosophers call a “brute fact.” The problem with brute facts, however, is that “if anything can exist without some explanation as to why, then how do we discern which things have explanations and which do not? Surely, some things do have explanations as to why they exist. Where do we draw the lines of criteria as to which?”

In other words, if the universe is a changing and contingent entity like the things within the universe, and if it requires no explanation for its existence, then it is hard to see why things within the universe should require explanation for their existence either. For all we know, things simply exist for no reason at all, or pop into existence uncaused. But if that’s the case, not only do we lose the possibility of science (science seeks explanations for things, after all)—we also lose all rational modes of inquiry, including reason itself. Thoughts could just pop into our heads for no reason, meaning that our beliefs may pletely untethered from external reality and thus deprived of rational grounding. This includes the very belief that the universe and all the things in it have no explanation for their existence. At that point, we’re trapped in a radical skepticism that allows for no beliefs about anything at all. As Flynn explains, by “denying the principle that things really do, unexceptionally, have explanations, we throw ourselves into a catastrophic, self-defeating skepticism, where nothing can be counted as knowledge, or any belief rationally justified, including—and this is important—the belief that things lack explanation.”

In short, brute facts end up being a universal acid that eats through the intelligibility of reality, including rationality itself, which is why Flynn spends so much ink analyzing many of the best naturalistic arguments and objections, and showing the reader why they ultimately lead either to self-defeat or to global skepticism. Along the way, he not only offers thorough defenses of many key principles of rational inquiry, including the Principle of Sufficient Reason (or “PSR”), but he carefully treats the most serious stumbling blocks to theism for many naturalists, including suffering and the problem of evil (“theodicy”).

Flynn acknowledges the gravity of the theodicy dilemma but nevertheless maintains that both suffering and evil end up pointing toward rather than away from the existence of God. Why? Consider what it means for something to be “good” or “bad.” A good apple, to use Flynn’s example, is one that has all the features an apple should have given its nature as an apple. (A good apple has features like crispness, juiciness, tastiness, etc.) A bad apple, however, is one that lacks at least one of the features it should have (say, tastiness), given its nature as an apple. Now, and this is the key insight, note that we recognize a bad apple only because of its prior goodness—that is, by the fact that it has apple-like features such as “crispness” and “juiciness,” and only then do we grasp its badness for lacking the “tastiness” it should have provided, as apples by nature are tasty. What all this means is that, at bottom, evil is, as Augustine pointed out in the fourth century, parasitic on the good. As Flynn writes, “there must always be some level of goodness or success before we can judge any level of badness or failure.” Goodness, in other words, is more fundamental to reality than badness. This all makes perfect sense, of course, to the theist, given that the nature of ultimate reality, or God, is pure goodness itself. That is why properly understanding the nature of good and evil provides evidence for theism rather than naturalism.

But of course, a proper understanding of this issue, and of theism itself, requires much more than can be said here. For that, pick up a copy of this accessible updating of some perennial arguments for the existence of God. You won’t be disappointed.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Foreign aid fraud concerns ‘valid,’ says UK chief
The man who oversees the UK’s foreign aid budget says that public concerns about fraud, abuse, and futility associated with international development programs are “valid.” And he plans to fight those perceptions by launching an evangelistic campaign on behalf of the government. Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary for the Department for International Development (DfID), told a civil service website that foreign aid skeptics raise two chief objections: Either they believe that “the problems are too big” to fix or that “the...
When it comes to plastic straw bans, won’t somebody please think of the children?
Twenty years ago on The Simpsons, Helen Lovejoy gave us one of the most ubiquitous rallying cries in politics: Homer: Mr. Mayor, I hate to break it to you, but this town is infested by bears. Lovejoy: Think of the children! [The mayor sets up a Bear Patrol, which costs tax money. One week later, the citizens have a plaint.] Homer: Down with taxes! Down with taxes! Lovejoy: Won’t somebody please think of the children? The attempt to gain support...
C.S. Lewis on why we have cause to be uneasy
If, like me, you spend a lot of time online—especially on social media—or watching the news you probably have a constant, low-level sense of anxiety. Always focusing on the problems in the world can cause us to feel a perpetual sense of unease. But while we may try to blame this feeling on the state of the world, deep down we know there must be something more to it. We have a sense that something is truly wrong, as if...
The folly of ‘following your passion’
If you’re a young person in America, you’ve undoubtedly been bombarded by calls to“follow your passion,” “pursue your dreams,” or “do what you love and love what you do.” But do these sugary mantras truly represent the path to vocational clarity, economic abundance, personal fulfillment, and human flourishing? Not according to a new study by researchers from Stanford University and Yale-NUS College, which found that “following your passion” is likely to lead to overly limited pursuits, inflated expectations (career, economic,...
We are all New Deal socialists now
President Trump is known for public unveiling his inner thoughts on Twitter. But one of the most ments he’s ever made came recently in a private discussion with lawmakers about trade policy. According to Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., when senators visited the White Housethey told the president what farmers want is access to markets, not a payment from government. To this Trump replied, “I’m surprised, I’ve never heard of anybody who didn’t want a payment from government.” Unfortunately, the president...
FAQ: The U.S.-EU plan to reduce tariffs
On Wednesday afternoon, President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced a new transatlantic plan to “make our planet a better, more secure, and more prosperous place” by lowering tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations between the U.S. and the EU. Here’s what you need to know. What did the two leaders announce? The U.S. and EU signed a joint statement of intention to pursue four goals: “First of all, to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers,...
Adam Smith and the morality of commercial society
Over at Arc Digital today I take a look at Adam Smith’s moral teachings, particularly in light mercial society and Christian theology. This essay serves as a brief introduction to one of the Moral Markets projects I am working on, as well as a teaser for further exploration of the relationship between Christianity and classical political economy. As A.M.C. Waterman describes the developments following the publication of Smith’s Wealth of Nations (WN), “Whether Smith actually intended WN to be read...
‘If anyone was ever a socialist it was Jesus’: Democratic Socialists of America leader
Last week, Kelley Rose told the national media why she helped found a chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America: Jesus made her do it. Fittingly, she told her story at taxpayer expense. ments came as part of a glowing profile of the DSA that National Public Radio posted on July 26 mistitled, “What You Need to Know About the Democratic Socialists of America.” Rose, a 36-year-oldwho co-founded the DSA’s North Central West Virginia chapter, told NPR: “I might be...
Peter Heslam on wealth creation among the global poor
Throughout our debates about global poverty and economic inequality, critics of capitalism routinely raise the point that half of the world’s population live on less than $2 per day, while wealth among the other half continues to “concentrate.” The underlying assumption is clear: For so many to be making so little, someone (somewhere) must surely be takingmuch. Yet given that such a statistic actually represents a high-water mark in human historyfor all people — rich and poor alike — we’d...
Justin Welby reimagines a poorer and less free Britain
“Christian leaders are often guilty of ‘souping up, mon good,” says Noah Gould in this week’s Acton Commentary. “Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, is no exception. In his latest book, Reimagining Britain: Foundations for Hope, Welby sets out to create a new social and political vision for the United Kingdom based on mon good.” The most precise definition Welby offers is that mon good “looks not to averages but to the totality of flourishing in a group.” He uses the...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved