Author Interview

Question: The title of your latest book is The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our “Just Right” Goldilocks Universe. What does Goldilocks have to do with God, and how can your book help people come to grips with the September 11 terrorist attacks against America?

Answer: The Number One effect of the September 11 nightmare is that it instantly forced us all to separate the things in life that ultimately matter from the things that don't really matter in the end. This is the primary way in which this unprecedented attack has changed all of our lives. But what's the most important thing in life that ultimately matters to each and every one of us? Why, it's whether or not God really exists or not. Everything—and I mean EVERYTHING—ultimately hinges on the answer to this question. Moreover, if it turns out that a perfectly Good and All-Powerful God DOES exist after all, then so much the better, because His Supreme Power and Goodness will most definitely make all things work out in the end, even if we die the most miserable of deaths. This is where Goldilocks comes in. For as modern science has recently discovered, the entire universe of physical forces is "just right" for the existence of life. For as it turns out, life can't exist just anywhere. Everything from the strength of gravity to the nature of nuclear physics has to be "just so," or else life would be impossible. Scientists have learned that the odds for this "just right" arrangement are statistically impossible—that is, without an Intelligent Designer to deliberately make the universe fit for life. This is Good News indeed for all of us, but particularly for the innocent victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, as well as their families. For no matter what tragedies may befall us in this life, it is infinitely comforting to know that a perfectly Good and All-Powerful God will take care of EVERYTHING in the end.

Question: Where was God on September 11? If He really exists, why didn't He prevent it from happening?

Answer: God was most definitely "there" in New York on September 11. However, He couldn't have prevented this tragedy without taking away our free will, and as we Americans fully realize, it is our freedom that is the most priceless Gift of them all. God created us as free-willed beings, and He isn't going to take that freedom away from us in order to prevent evils from occurring, because that would violate the very definition of our humanity. In this sense, it is infinitely better for us to be free, and yet to suffer horrendously from time to time, than it is for us to be unfree, because then we would be no different from preprogrammed automatons.

Question: Do you mean to say that freedom is THAT important to the Creator?

Answer: Absolutely! God doesn't want unfree robots. He wants free-willed beings who will FREELY choose to love Him and to follow Him. If He wanted robots, we would have been created that way from the very beginning.

Question: I see what you mean. Adam and Eve had a choice, didn't they?

Question: They sure did, and they had a choice because God respected their freedom all the way to the bitter end. In the long run, though, it is ultimately worth it; otherwise God would have never created us this way to begin with.

Question: Do you mean to say that freedom actually has a "price," even to God?

Answer: I sure do! St. Paul tells us that we were "bought for a price," and that price is the natural price of freedom. Unfortunately, this "price" inevitably entails the occurrence of Hitler-type catastrophes from time to time, and the September 11 terrorist attacks are a good example of this.

Question: So what's the story with modern science and the existence of God? Is it true that scientists have actually "discovered" God's existence in the form of hard core scientific evidence?

Answer: It sure is! Scientists have known for a long time now that some type of Superintellect HAS to be behind the creation of the universe, but they can't actually come out and say so openly because the very idea of a Creator is taboo in science.

Question: Do you mean to say that there has been a cover-up in science as far as God is concerned?

Answer: That's precisely what I mean to say! However, this hasn't been a deliberate "conspiracy" type of cover-up. Not at all. It's just that God isn't a physical object who can be measured in the laboratory. This is the reason why God isn't generally mentioned in the scientific community. Nevertheless, there is literally a mountain of scientific evidence that overwhelmingly proves the existence of an Intelligent Designer behind every aspect of our world. He just isn't directly mentioned.

Question: Are you saying that anyone can see this proof of God in the scientific world if they take the time to look?

Answer: I sure am! However, a person has to know WHERE to look, and how to interpret the scientific data. Even so, the majority of popular scientific books routinely mention God, even though God isn't a natural part of science, and the reason God is routinely mentioned is because the scientific evidence is truly THIS compelling.

Question: Exactly what kind of proof are you talking about, Dr. Corey? Answer: If I flipped a coin a million times, and it came up heads each time, wouldn't you be convinced that the coin was "fixed" or "loaded" to come up heads every time? Of course you would! Or better yet, if you went to Las Vegas and started playing poker, wouldn't it be a little conspicuous if you were dealt 100 consecutive royal flushes?

Question: It would be MORE than a little conspicuous—you'd probably get in trouble for somehow "fixing" the deck!

Answer: You're absolutely correct! If you were dealt one hundred consecutive royal flushes, the manager of the casino would be absolutely convinced that something "fishy" was going on, and his conviction would amount to a very definite "proof."

Question: I definitely see this.

Answer: But it's the very same way in the scientific world, except for one thing—the odds that life could have originated randomly are trillions of times more remote than the poker example I just gave. This is because the existence of life is an exceptionally delicate thing that requires everything in the entire universe to be "just right."

Question: Is this where "Goldilocks" comes in?

Answer: It is indeed! Every single aspect of the universe had to be "just right," or else life would have never been able to exist here. However, this "just right" status is like being dealt a trillion trillion consecutive royal flushes! Nobody in their right mind would believe that this could possibly happen by chance alone, and it is this very fact that PROVES the existence of a Creator beyond any doubt at all.

Question: How ironic for Goldilocks herself to have discovered this scientific proof for the existence of God!

Answer: Yes, it IS very ironic. And deep down, I'm convinced that most scientists realize this. They just can't say so openly because it contradicts the very foundation of their life's work.

Question: What exactly do you mean by this?

Answer: It's like saying that "the Emperor has no clothes." A scientist has to risk his public reputation, and sometimes his very job, if he or she comes out and openly says that the scientific evidence proves the existence of a Creator.

Question: I see. I'm really intrigued. What else does science have to say about God?

Answer: Well, there's a ton of scientific evidence that actually describes what God HIMSELF is actually like.

Question: You've got to be kidding!

Answer: No, I'm not kidding at all. For instance, did you know that modern science teaches that the entire universe originated from a tiny "superparticle" that was actually INFINITELY small, INFINITELY dense, and INFINITELY hot? But what kind of power would it take to transform this infinitely dense particle into the entire visible universe? It would obviously take an INFINITE amount of power, wouldn't it? But this is precisely what classical theists have been saying about God all along—namely, that He is all-powerful.

Question: But if God is such an important part of the natural sciences, shouldn't He be included in our modern scientific pursuit of truth?

Answer: Absolutely! The key, though, is to restrict the use of God as an explanation to the data interpretation stage of the modern scientific method. This means that scientists should collect empirical data in a purely physical way, but also that they should then include God in the later interpretation of that data—that is, if such an explanation turns out to be appropriate to the evidence at hand.

Question: But isn't this a return to the dreaded "God of the gaps"? Why should we use God to explain those things about the universe that we don't yet understand? Won't there eventually come a point where a purely natural explanation will suffice?

Answer: Yes, but only to a point. Eventually there will come a time when purely natural explanations will no longer suffice. Take the origin of the laws of nature, for example. There is no coherent way to devise a totally natural explanation for the origin of the laws of nature. The same thing applies to the Big Bang. According to the teachings of modern cosmology, the Big Bang literally took place "out of nothing," just like classical theism teaches. Not even time or space existed before the Big Bang, yet it somehow happened in a complete metaphysical vacuum. This is identical to the ancient theological teaching of creation "ex nihilo," or out of nothing.

Question: I'm really astonished thus far, Dr. Corey, but what about the problem of evil? How can you possibly reconcile the many evils of human life with the existence of a perfectly good and all-powerful God?

Answer: It isn't as hard as you might think. It all has to do with the types of beings that God wanted to create in the beginning. Had He simply desired to create a race of sub-human animals, I don't believe that any evils at all would have to exist. But everything changes when it comes to the creation of bona fide human beings, because if God didn't want to create unfree robots, there was only one other option available to Him, no matter how much power He possesses. This other option would be to create humans in a totally immature state, so that they could then grow through their own free-willed effort into mature human souls. But this state of partial assembly is naturally dangerous, whether the object in question is an automobile or a human being!

Question: What exactly do you mean by that?

Answer: What happens if you take a car off the assembly line when it is only halfway completed? It will naturally malfunction and wreck, won't it? Well, human beings are the very same way. God HAD to create us in an unfinished, immature state in order to guarantee that we wouldn't be unfree robots, but this naturally made us vulnerable to behavioral malfunctioning. And since God naturally wants to respect our free will, no matter what, He HAS to let us do whatever we naturally want to do, no matter how destructive it is. But it's actually wilder than this, because it doesn't really matter how much power God actually possesses. Evil doesn't transpire because God lacks a certain amount of power. This is what process theists believe, and I am convinced that their position is in error. Why? Because it wouldn't matter if God had a million times more power than He has now—He STILL wouldn't be able to create us fully-assembled without simultaneously transforming us into unfree robots!

Question: Is all of this material available in your latest book THE GOD HYPOTHESIS?

Answer: The vast majority of it is. However, for a detailed discussion of the problem of evil, you'd have to turn to my previous book, EVOLUTION AND THE PROBLEM OF NATURAL EVIL.

Question: Where can our listeners buy THE GOD HYPOTHESIS and your other books?

Answer: They can order them at substantial discounts from my web site, MichaelACorey.com, or they can ask for them at their favorite bookstore.