“The Argument to a First Cause is very logical,” said the fellow on the bench, “but maybe God is exempt from logic.”  I hear this often.

But consider:  If the Being behind everything doesn’t have to make sense, then nothing has to make sense.  It is not a more advanced rationality to demand proof that things make sense; rather faith that things make sense is of the very essence of rationality.  “Maybe things don’t have to make sense” is an example of what Chesterton called a “thought that stops thought,” and I think we have to say the same thing about “Maybe God is exempt from logic.”

The fellow on the other bench objected to the Argument from Desire, which says that since every natural desire is for something, but we naturally desire something not to be found in this world, that which satisfies this desire must be beyond this world.  Enamoured of evolutionary psychology, he said “Maybe we are unsatisfied by the things of this world just because dissatisfaction makes us strive.”  And this view is common too.

But consider:  If there is no God, and the only explanation of our psychology is natural selection, then what are we supposed to be striving for?  There is an adaptive advantage in striving for, say, food, but there is no adaptive advantage in striving for something that doesn’t exist.  In fact, if the thing we are striving for isn’t real, then why shouldn’t our dissatisfaction with the things of this world merely discourage us from striving for anything whatsoever?  There is no point in reaching upward unless there is something up there.