John Lennox, Christian apologist and professor emeritus of mathematics at Oxford, reminds us that while science can tell us how our world works, it cannot tell us anything about why we are here. His observation strikes me as unarguably true, but it begs the question whether there is a why.

With humans and other conscious beings (dogs, for example), we know there is a why guiding  their actions. We act to remove felt dissatisfaction, to get closer to the state we desire. In other words, we act to achieve a purpose. Any time we observe an outcome, we are seeing something for which there was a purpose. Without some purpose, nothing gets designed or made; in fact, without a purpose nothing can get designed or made. Without a concept, without a goal, there is no basis or structure for anything to come into being and develop.

Whatever else we may say about the universe, we have to concede that it exists and is observed. Not only do observers and things observed exist, they evolve, sometimes in extraordinarily complicated, diverse ways. The very fact of existence and evolution suggests to me that the entire universe is the result of purposive activity by some acting consciousness. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the opening of the gospel according to St. John, “In the beginning was the Word”, is a statement of fact, not belief.

Someone who believes that the universe is purposeless, just the result of blind, random, unconscious forces, would retort that the sheer size of the universe disconfirms the idea that purpose has to be a necessary antecedent for the creation of anything. After all, as PhD Astrophysicist and Christian minister, Hugh Ross, asks, “Why would the universe need to be so big if just one relatively tiny planet with its population of humans is the focal point of God’s creation?”[1]

The observable universe consists of somewhere around 50 billion trillion stars. Isn’t it nonsensical to believe that there is some purpose behind all these stars? Aren’t all these stars an unimaginable waste? Actually, no.

Dr. Ross explains as follows:

“The universe must be as massive as it is or human life would not be possible – for at least two reasons. The first concerns the production of life-essential elements.

“The density of protons and neutrons in the universe relates to the cosmic mass, or mass density (density per unit volume or, more colloquially, the amount of stuff in a given volume of space). That density determines how much hydrogen … fuses into heavier elements during the first few minutes of cosmic existence. And the amount of heavier elements determines how much additional heavy-element production occurs later in the nuclear furnaces of stars.

“If the density of protons and neutrons were significantly lower (than enough to convert to convert about 1 percent of the universe’s mass into stars), then nuclear fusion would proceed less efficiently. As a result, the cosmos would never be capable of generating elements heavier than helium – elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sodium, and potassium, which are essential for any kind of physical life. On the other hand, if the density of protons and neutrons were slightly higher (enough to convert significantly more than 1 percent of the mass of the universe into stars), nuclear fusion would be too productive. All the hydrogen in the universe would rapidly fuse into elements as heavy as, or heavier than iron….. Life-essential elements … would not exist.

“The second reason the universe must be hugely massive concerns its expansion rate. The rate at which the universe expands throughout cosmic history critically depends on its mass density….. the closer various bits and pieces of mass are to one another in the universe, the more effectively they will slow down the universe’s expansion. Conversely, the farther apart those bits and pieces are, the less “braking effect” gravity has on cosmic expansion.

“… a universe with less mass density would not form stars like the Sun and planets like Earth. Its expansion would be so rapid that gravity would not have opportunity to pull together the gas and dust to make such bodies. Yet, if the cosmic mass were any greater, gas and dust would condense so effectively under gravity’s influence that all stars would be much larger than the Sun. Any planets such stars might hold in their orbit would be unsuitable for life because of the intensity of the stars’ radiation and because of rapid changes in the stars’ temperature, radiation, and luminosity….

“With only a little extra mass, the universe would expand so slowly that all stars in the cosmos would rapidly become black holes or neutron stars.  [Their density would make the existence of molecules impossible].[2]

Even at the very largest scale, there appears to be design, a very fine balance. Since there can be no design without purpose, there must be purpose to the universe; there must be a why.

As a struggling Christian, I have made a personal bet as to what the why is, and I can tell you why I think my view is true, but of course I don’t know for sure. What I do know for sure is that, as the author and classicist Spencer Klavan recently said, “There are also good and lovely people who know that things like humility, truth, and courage come from a greater source than evolution or brain chemistry. Many of those people will end up Christians, but not all of them.”

[1] Hugh Ross, “Why The Universe Is The Way It Is”, Baker Books (2008), Kindle ed., p.29.

[2] Ross, pp. 32-34.