Lately I've had some meaningful and warm conversations with people about faith, the possibility of faith, questions about truth, science and religion and things like that. I enjoy these conversations a lot, I like the intellectual pursuit of them and the way they offer opportunities to make new friends over meaningful interaction and thought sharing.
The question of whether God exists is of course one of the oldest questions of human inquiry. The two basic conclusions have placed people in either the "yes" or "no" families for many millennia. The yes or no families tend to represent those who draw their conclusions through religion and those who draw their conclusions through science.
In my view, a serious thinker who is a person of character (both are important here) sees two important points in this inquiry: The first is that these questions are about the very highest and most mysterious aspects of existence. In our day, people who approach this intellectually, will not in this life "prove" that their position is right - proved as to make an air tight, locked up case. That is to say, I believe that both sides must admit that faith is involved - faith being a component of trust into the space where one is not sure. A person of religious faith should agree to this, but a person who has placed their trust in science must also agree that they are putting faith in certain places of the argument. So faith is involved, regardless of which side you choose. Secondly, because there will not be an air tight, completely conclusive proof, a person must then choose based on the side he/she finds to be the more persuasive one, the more logical one, the one that presents the most intellectually intelligible position - the one that is founded on rigorous intellectual examination while at the same time must be accompanied by sterling character. The character part is needed to ensure that a person will not be deceitful, that they are humble enough to concede where they may be wrong or where the other person has made a good point, and finally, that they will not manipulate information in order to gain currency for their position. Finding people like this is not always easy.
Okay - now on to why I once was an atheist who embraced the scientific view, a view without God, where all that exists is the result of random physical forces, but I no longer hold this view. There are two main streams for me, and remember that the point I'm making is not "which one is right" but "which one do I find more persuasive - more logical to me, makes the most sense." The first stream is the question of origins - "where did anything come from?" Science says "matter, elements, sub atomic sized particles that banded together and became something more" etc... I appreciate that, but the question remains - "where did that come from?" Science says "it was so tiny, it was gaseous, it was...." It doesn't matter how small it is, size is a relative concept. It's not a "how big" question, it's a "yes or no" question, an "it exists or doesn't" question. Size is immaterial. Thus, to hold a position that "it just came out of nothing" is illogical to me. It does not have intellectual credibility to me. There is nothing that exists, that comes from nothing. Something, or someone - made it. That's normal every day life reasoning. Remember when you were a kid and you saw a magician pull a rabbit out of a hat and it seemed to you that "something just appeared." Well, later you learned that the rabbit was always there, it didn't come from nowhere - but that it's "appearance from nothing" was not actually an appearance from nothing - but it was done with a sleight of hand. Actually the magician brought it to our attention through some mysterious means. Interesting.
To me, it is not persuasive to say that matter came from nothing, even if it was tiny, even if it was elemental or gaseous. It is much more logical to say that God has always existed, and then at a point of his choosing, he chose to create. Science may then ask, "Where did God come from?" That's a good question - but the answer is "He always existed, he is the ultimate reality - thus everything came from him." A science person might say "I don't buy it." Okay - fair enough. We can only operate on what we personally find the most persuasive position. To me however, this view is much more persuasive, more logical, than the view that physical existence came into being, from nothing. Another aspect of the purely scientific view that began to grow hollow for me, was that advances in science, meant changes were made to "scientific facts." For instance, 50 years ago - there were scientific views that were held to be "fact" but now they aren't, because advances have changed our understanding. In other words, "that was wrong, cuz now we know more." Take one of the simplest examples; when I was a kid, there were 9 planets, scientific "fact." Now however, there are 8; scientific "fact," because Pluto it was discovered, did not qualify as a planet. I find the changes in the facts to be disconcerting to intellectual progress as well as determinations through logic.
In wrapping up this part - someone's gonna say "do you believe in science." My answer is definitely "yes." I believe in so much of what science teaches us, and has uncovered and discovered. I'm really grateful for it. But on the question of origins, I do not find the science side to be persuasive.
The second stream is that science has no explanation for the non-physical world, and the non-physical world is an absolutely massive part of human life. Human beings live every day looking for love and identity, they seek forgiveness and hope. These are major, major aspects of human existence and science does not have an explanation for these things. If life was purely a science based, physical world, love would not be part of human life and existence. Yet love is a more significant player in human experience than the existence of many physical things like mountains or flowers. We must have some understanding for the question, "where did love come from?" Now this entry is getting really long and I could go on for a long time, but gotta cut it short - so by far the most persuasive answer to "where does love come from?" is "God." God is love, we're told in the Bible, and this foundational point explains a great deal of human existence. Without this foundational point, we are addressing only the physical world, which is no where near a full explanation of human existence and human experience. My mind demands some kind of persuasive answer to this massive category of life. And this category of love, is only one of many like it that are in the same conversation - grief, forgiveness, hope... are a few more.
I'm very appreciative of people who are seriously seeking truth and doing so with both character and intellectual rigor. I hope that I've done it this way, I know I continue to try. For me, this (constant) inquiry has led me to the position that I find most intellectually credible, most persuasive - that God is the ultimate reality and all comes from him. This is what first led me to become a Christian; and while there are many more aspects to my Christian life now that I have been a Christian for over 25 years, this one remains a mainstay of my relationship with God and life as I understand it.
