Dr. Stephen C. Meyer is my favorite defender of Christianity these days. His first book covered the origin of life. His second book covered the sudden origin of body plans in the fossil record. And his third book covered the origin of the universe and fine-tuning. In this post, we’ll see a recent popular-level article he wrote for The Federalist, and 6 new short videos he made for Prager University.

Here is latest article from my favorite news source – The Federalist. He explains how scientific discoveries provide evidence for a Creator of the universe:

From the first astronomical investigations about the early history of the universe, light, and other forms of radiant energy, have yielded the most important clues about cosmic origins. During the 1920s, astronomers discovered that the wavelengths of light coming from distant galaxies were stretched out, or “red-shifted,” as if the galaxies were moving away from us. Just as sound coming from a train whistle drops in pitch as the result of the sound waves being stretched out as the train recedes, light coming from a distant galaxy changes color (becomes more red) as light waves are elongated as galaxies move away from Earth.

Soon after the discovery of the red shift, Belgian priest-physicist Georges Lemaître and Caltech astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that galaxies farther away from Earth were receding faster than those close at hand. That suggested a spherical expansion of the universe in all directions of space like a balloon inflating from a singular explosive beginning—from a “Big Bang.”

Then in 1965, physicists discovered a different kind of light they thought provided further evidence of the Big Bang. While working at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson inadvertently discovered an extremely low-energy radiation on their highly sensitive, large antennas. This radiant energy, now known as the Cosmic Background Radiation, is postulated to be a remnant of the earliest moments after the Big Bang when the universe was immensely hot and densely compacted.

Those are the 3 most common pieces of evidence for a cosmic beginning – and therefore, a Cosmic Beginner. And this evidence is likely to be enhanced by NASA’s newest telescope, which Dr. Meyer talks about:

[O]n December 22 NASA will launch a new satellite capable of seeing the first starlight from just after the Big Bang—a light, and an event, that tell us about the creation of the universe and, in their own ways, reveal God to the world.

NASA’s new James Webb Space Telescope will be carried into space this week from French Guiana on the back of an Ariane 5 rocket. The $10 billion, 21-foot telescope features a massive umbrella-like sun shield. It also boasts 15 times the range of motion and six times the light-gathering capability of the Hubble Space Telescope—NASA’s next best instrument for peering deep into space and far back in time.

The light that NASA’s new telescope seeks to detect comes, not from those very earliest moments after the beginning, but from the first stars and galaxies that formed an estimated several hundred thousand years later. Detecting that light will nevertheless provide further confirmation of an expanding universe.

Since the new telescope can detect infrared light—invisible light with extremely long wave-lengths—it can establish whether the most distant galaxies exhibit the amount of red shift that astronomers expect given the Big Bang.

[…]This additional evidence of an expanding universe would further deepen the mystery associated with the Big Bang and add weight to a growing science-based “God hypothesis.” If the physical universe of matter, energy, space, and time had a beginning—as observational astronomy and theoretical physics increasingly suggest—it becomes extremely difficult to conceive of any physical or materialistic cause for the origin of the universe. After all, it was matter and energy that first came into existence at the Big Bang. Before that, no matter or energy—no physics—would have yet existed that could have caused the universe to begin.

Instead, whatever caused the universe to originate must not have been material and must exist beyond space and time. It must further have been capable of initiating a great change of state, from nothing to everything that exists. Such considerations have led other scientists—former Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Gerald Schroeder and the late Caltech astrophysicist Allan Sandage, for example—to posit an external creator as the best explanation for the origin of the universe as revealed by modern cosmology.

This new telescope creates an interesting situation for Christians and atheists. Christians are excited about this telescope, and anxious to get back the results that will confirm a supernatural Creator. Atheists are nervous about this telescope. They are committed to an eternally existing universe. One that doesn’t implicate any kind of supernatural first cause of the natural world. If the universe has a beginning, then by definition, the cause of the universe must be supernatural and eternal. Because it existed causally prior to the beginning of the universe. It is not material, because it created matter. It is not in time, because it created the physical universe that marks the passage of time.

Anyway, to share this information, Dr. Meyer has created six new short videos for Prager University. I’ve embedded the 6 videos below, and each title is a link to Prager University where you can find a transcript. These are perfect for busy people to get the big picture.

1. ARE RELIGION AND SCIENCE IN CONFLICT?

2. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GOD AND WHY IT MATTERS

3. HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN?

4. ALIENS, THE MULTIVERSE, OR GOD?

5. DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN

6. EVOLUTION: BACTERIA TO BEETHOVEN

If you’re looking for a longer lecture, delivered to an audience of students, this one from 2015 is 95 minutes long, and has over 900,000 views:

What I’d like to see is parents and pastors stop worrying about how Christians feel,and whether we are like. Step one of being a Christian is knowing and showing that God exists. It’s not about feelings, community or peer approval. This is not Disney. This is not romance novels. What we need is young Christians who can have productive conversations about Christianity. And those conversations are easy – if we are trained in the mainstream science that confirms the existence of the supernatural Creator / Designer.

I have a little experience with metaphysics – just what I learned from a few lectures by the wonderful Christian professor Dr. J. P. Moreland. What I remember from those lectures is that metaphysics can be useful for defending the reality of non-physical minds, and dogmatic skepticism is self-refuting. But I found a nice, easy article by Tyson James to give us a real overview of metaphysics.

His article is on Worldview Bulletin.

He starts like this:

One day, a close church friend asked me, “What is metaphysics?” Dr. Paul Gould notes in a previous article that local bookstores often locate the subject of metaphysics somewhere around tarot cards and astrology. It may be surprising, then, for some to learn that metaphysics is actually the name of a very important field in philosophy.

So, what is metaphysics to philosophers and what in the world does it have to do with Christianity? These are actually very important questions, since metaphysics is a subject which touches on some of the most fundamental elements of the Christian faith.

So, I looked down the list and he has these:

• Is there a first cause?
• Do we have free will?
• Are there any unchanging truths?
• What are space and time?
• How do things which change maintain their identity over time?
• Is the physical universe all there is?
• Are objective morals real?

This is what he has to say about the one I remember:

How do things which change maintain their identity over time? Christians believe that the same person who was a sinner may also accept Christ, be saved from his sins, and enjoy eternity with God. But some people say that there is no “self” which maintains identity over time, that we’re just collections of atoms which change every time an atom is gained, lost, or rearranged. So, answering this question is important for showing that the same person who is lost without Jesus may be saved and restored in Jesus.

As a software engineer from an immigrant family, reading philosophy is as painful to me as a root canal. I just keep thinking “why do I have to know this if no one will pay me to know this?” But I like to win apologetics battles more, so I have forced myself to learn a little about some of the topics in his list. Every good Christian apologist knows how to defend philosophical attacks, like the problem of evil, religious pluralism, postmodernism, physicalism of minds, the hiddenness of God, rational unbelief, animal pain, etc. And we know how to go on the attack with objective morality, mind-body dualism, persistent identity through time, free will, etc. Not to mention first cause arguments, but I try to only think about that as a scientific problem. Metaphysics is useful for many of these tasks.

Anyway, metaphysics. Let me find you something useful to teach you some metaphysics. Here is a good short essay from Dr. John Depoe, who defends the reality of the non-physical minds, which is also known as “substance dualism”, because there are two substances – your body and your mind.

He writes about the persistent identity argument for the soul:

Another argument supporting substance dualism is that one maintains personal identity through change. Even though one is continuously going through physical changes and experiencing different mental states, a person continues to be the same person. If persons were identical with their physical parts or mental states, they would cease to be the same persons as these changes occurred. Therefore, it is necessary to postulate an immaterial, substantial self that endures through change.

Suppose that someone believes that people do not maintain identity through change and concludes that the previous argument for substance dualism fails. This denial of personal identity through change, I contend, presents untenable difficulties. First, there is one’s own awareness of being the same person through change. Moreover, if one is not literally the same person through these changes, how can a person maintain long-term goals and desires?

If you are your body, and your body is always changing, then you aren’t the same person now as 5 minutes ago.

There are many other good arguments for real non-physical minds. First of all, we know about the existence of at least one non-physical mind. God. That’s who brings the physical universe into being. He’s not physical. And there is also our first-person awareness of our mental state, our experience of consciousness, our ability to think about other things (“intentionality”), and our experience of free will.

So you see, this is all very practical, even if it frightens my practical West Indian parents if I talk about it too much.

Today, most young people think that they are building up their relationship resumes by having casual sex. They think that they are elevating their value proposition to a marriage partner by having casual sex, and all that comes with it – the lack of emotional bond, the lack of commitment, the lack of partnership, the painful break-ups, the decline of trust, etc. But what does the research say?

Here’s the report from Institute for Family Studies about the new study.

Methodology:

Our findings are based on a new study using data from The National Couples and Pornography Study. The data sample was collected independently by Qualtrics from their existing data panel during 2020. It consists of 3,750 individuals in committed couple relationships, including 1,942 married adults, on whom we focused in this study. The demographically diverse sample was recruited from across the U.S. based on quotas for age, race, education level, and geographic region.

We examined the effects of sexual experience on marriage across four married groups:

• Group 1: Inexperienced – These are individuals who were sexually inexperienced prior to marriage and who have only had sex with their spouse (19.5% of the sample).

• Group 2: Less Experienced – These were individuals with between 2 to 4 lifetime sexual partners before marriage, which is less sexual experience than the average adult in the sample (33.4% of the sample).

• Group 3: More Experienced – These are individuals who reported a total number of 5 to 9 lifetime sexual partners. This is the group that captures the average person in the sample (24.4% of the sample).

• Group 4: Highly Experienced – The final group includes those who reported 10 or more total lifetime sexual partners. This group made up 22.7% of the sample.

Now let’s look at the findings, starting with relationship satisfaction:

Sexually inexperienced couples have the highest levels of relationship satisfaction. 

While over 1 in 5 spouses in the Inexperienced group were likely to report a very high level of relationship satisfaction, only 1 in 7 of those in the More Experienced group were likely to report the same level of satisfaction. This dropped even further for those in the Highly Experienced group, with less than 1 in 10 of spouses reporting that they are very satisfied with their marriage. Thus, sexually inexperienced spouses are more than twice as likely to report that they are highly satisfied with their marriages than are spouses with high levels of sexual experience (see Figure 1).

And the findings about marital stability:

Having multiple sexual partners before marriage is strongly associated with lower marital stability. 

Similar to other studies, we found that sexual experience prior to marriage is correlated with lower stability in marriage and a greater likelihood of divorce. Specifically, we found that inexperienced men and women who have only had sex with their spouse have a nearly 45% chance of reporting a very high level of relationship stability in their marriage, whereas only 25% of married individuals with 5 to 9 lifetime sex partners, and only 14% of married individuals with 10 or more lifetime sex partners report a similarly high level of relationship stability.

And the findings about sexual satisfaction and emotional connection:

Spouses who have only had sex with their current spouse have the highest levels of sexual satisfaction and emotional connection in their marriage.

Nearly 1 in 5 married men and women who have only had sex with their spouse report that they are “very satisfied” with multiple aspects of their sexual relationship. In comparison, only 1 in 10 married men and women who are “highly sexually experienced” (meaning they had 10 or more sexual partners before marriage) report similar levels of sexual satisfaction (see Figure 3). Also, nearly 80% of married individuals who were sexually inexperienced before marriage report the highest level of emotional closeness in their marriage, which is more than 20% higher than individuals who have had multiple sexual partners.

Now let me give my comments about this.

I follow a lot of content that features young people talking about sex in relationships. The dominant view among young people is that they are becoming better relationship partners when they engage in casual sex. They say that they are learning about their own needs, and about what to look in other people so that their needs will be met. They think that more casual sex is like more work experience on a resume, and that this is what marriage-minded people of the opposite sex will be impressed with. They think that their Sexual Revolution approach to sex is going to lead to more stability, more relationship satisfaction, more emotional connection, and more sexual satisfaction.

So the first thing is that the research falsifies this. And you can see how this works by just thinking about the break-ups. Break-ups have the effect of making people look for the exits in relationships. Instead of committing first, and then taking responsibility to build and maintain the relationship, they are looking to get out of it to avoid being hurt. And they are always trying to make sure that their needs are met, and avoiding committing too much to the other person. They neither know nor care what the other person is trying to achieve, and they aren’t engaged in helping them to do that.

Also, consider that most young people are not forming their beliefs with knowledge that is likely to make them a better person. Concepts that are familiar to experienced Christians such as forgiveness and self-sacrificial love are nowhere in their worldviews. Biblical Christianity provides a rational basis for loving a spouse well, even when you don’t feel like it. Which is very useful in a marriage. They have a pretty self-serving view Christianity, something like “don’t judge” and “listen for the voice of God telling you his plan to make you happy”.

Instead their views are being formed by radical feminism, popular culture, celebrity worship, materialism, an almost fanatical focus on judging people by appearances, being led by feelings and peer-approval, etc. They expect to have stability and quality in a relationship where skills like forgiveness, self-denial, delayed gratification, planning, achieving goals together, etc. are critical. Imagine wanting to retire early. Is someone on the path to early retirement if they are guided entirely by their feelings? If they do only what feels good “in the moment”? If none of the peers who influence them have achieved this goal? Today, relationships are just a case of the blind leading the blind. It doesn’t work.