I’ve mentioned it before: “85 percent of young Catholics have stopped practicing their faith within ten years of being confirmed.” This fact shocks people and makes us really think.

Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, says that 30 years ago it would take one generation to move from a practicing Catholic to a non-practicing one, and then it would take another generation to move to being a non-believer, i.e. a functional agnostic or atheist. This movement is now accelerated by the media and internet and can happen in a single generation. Here are the statistics of percentage of functional agnostics, non-believers:

• Europe: 54%

• France: 54%

• Germany: 48%

• Scandinavian countries: 70-74%

• Italy: 22%

(See 11:10)

Some say, “Don’t worry about this.” I say, “Worry!” Because our Catholic children can go to university as Catholics, and come out four years later as atheists.

One reason for this is that Catholics are being challenged and have no answers. My non-Catholic friends have challenged me. Some relatives who are fallen-away Catholics challenge me at weddings and family get-togethers. Even you challenge me with your questions. You tell me so often how you get asked questions and so you bring these questions to me.

A teen from Life Teen put it so well: if someone presents you with a good argument that disagrees with your beliefs, and you don’t have a good reason for your belief, then you’re more likely to accept his and doubt yours. Analytical thinkers are especially vulnerable to these challenges.

Today, St. Peter says, “Always be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you.”

Let’s deal with one very important question, the foundation for all the rest: how do we know God exists? Because if He doesn’t, we’re wasting our time and I’ve wasted my life.

Faith involves feelings but it’s not based on feelings. Faith is an act of the will, and reasons and facts are very helpful in leading us to make the act of faith.

So, here is a fun, easy-to-understand argument for the existence of God. It’s called the “Argument from design.” It goes like this: suppose you’re flying in a plane over an island and you see stone on the beach in the formation of SOS, is it possible that the waves just washed it ashore in that pattern? Is it possible that happened purely by chance? It’s possible, but not likely. Suppose then you go ashore and see a little house made of stones stacked on one another, with a little empty space in the wall that looks like a window, is it possible that the wind blew those stones on top of each other? In other words, could it have happened by chance? Highly unlikely.

“When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. Scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, ‘Isn’t it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?’ The unbeliever objected, ‘What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket.’ ‘Oh,’ said the believer, ‘you don’t think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it’s a good explanation for the universe? There’s much more design in the universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn’t design a whole universe. I wonder who can?” (Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, 25).

These examples make clear something we all intuitively know: where there’s a design, there must be a designer. If there isn’t, then what’s an adequate explanation for all the complexity?

Fr. Spitzer wrote this book, “New Proofs for the Existence of God,” outlining how the universe is perfectly designed to have life, and this incredible design strongly suggests a designer; in fact, it’s so perfectly designed that it’s basically impossible to believe our universe happened by chance. I’m no expert in this, but I listen to the facts. This is his argument: we need certain conditions to have life develop (page 50). If these conditions were not present, then it would be impossible to have any life form. E.g. if the gravitational constant of the universe were changed by one part in 10⁵⁰, then either the universe would either collapse or explode—very bad for life. So, our gravitational constant is extremely well-designed for life, and that’s “extremely improbable.” The odds of this happening by chance is like rolling 50 10-sided dice at the same time, and they all have to hit ‘1.’

Even more unlikely is the low entropy of our universe. Low entropy means there’s lots of usable energy at the beginning of the Big Bang, and without this usable energy, nothing could happen in the universe. What are the odds of this happening by pure chance? ₁₀10¹²³. Roger Penrose, mathematical physicist, when he calculated this low-entropy, said, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in ₁₀10¹²³ (page 58). Fr. Spitzer writes, “The odds of our anthropic universe… is so exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly remote that its notation in regular exponential form is one part in :10^{100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000}

^{0000000000000000000000000000000000}. This number is so large that if we were to write it out in ordinary notation (with every zero being, say, ten point type), it would fill up a large portion of the universe!… Many physicists have concluded that our universe was influenced by a supernatural designing intelligence.” He also gives five other constants whose values are perfectly designed for life.

How do we explain all this? By Pure chance? Not even Stephan Hawking believes this.

(See 35:00, especially 41:10)

So, either God designs it, or we explain it by multiverses or by string theory. But, these theories also need fine-tuning, so we don’t get out of the need for design!

Add to this, proofs from the law of entropy and space-time geometry, which show that the universe must have had a beginning, and something must have thrown it into existence. And it wasn’t itself, because if it had a beginning, then before that, it was nothing; and nothing can do nothing! Then add the arguments from first-cause, from morality, and desire (See Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, and Kreeft & Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics).

Quick question: if this stuff is so obvious, why don’t more people believe it? The answer is that there are scientists who believe in this stuff, many aren’t vocal, while some atheists can be very vocal. In Fr. Spitzer’s film, “Cosmic origins,” seven out of eight scientists support the argument from design (and note that I’m trying to be objective here, because my observation is that one of the scientists in the film didn’t seem very convinced).

More over, some things are obvious but people still refuse to believe them. Have you ever been in an argument, you know we’re wrong, but don’t want admit it? Of course, because we’re proud and don’t like admitting we’re wrong.

There’s a parallel in the abortion debate. All the facts are there showing that the human fetus is a person, the embryology, that babies have hearts, can feel pain; everyone knows partial-birth abortion is disgusting; when Princess Kate was pregnant, no one called it “the royal fetus,” because everyone knows an unborn child is a person. Yet, despite all these facts and arguments, many people are stubborn and don’t want to face the truth. Other people just don’t know the facts, and no one tells them. And for many abortionists, there’s money involved, and it means we might have to change.

Fred Hoyle, who used to be the greatest atheist in physics (see Fr. Spitzer’s video, 43:58), said “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics… and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (73).

When young people get these facts, it helps them see the reasonability of faith. There are answers out there. The mind needs answers, and it gives satisfaction. If we look, we’ll find answers.

See also Peter Kreeft’s 5-minute explanation.