10 Reasons Why Atheism Doesn't Work For Me
In the vast majority of discussions I've had with atheists over the years I've found that many seem to have settled on their position based almost exclusively on their rejection of the standard beliefs of traditional Christianity. They'll often list their reasons why Christian beliefs seem contradictory to the bible or why the concept in general seems flimsy to them. And in those discussions it seems their assumption about me, being a Christian, is that I must not have pondered the same things they have or that I must not have critically analyzed my beliefs for myself.
However, where most atheists I've spoken with are concerned, it seems as if they've critically analyzed Christian beliefs and found them lacking, and have then simply settled on being an atheist. When pressed, it seems they have not turned that same critical gaze on the viewpoint of atheism itself. Does it stand on its own? Does it hold water if put to the same test of logic and scrutiny? Because in my personal experience, while I have at times found myself troubled with my inability to reconcile God as I understand Him with some of these more troubling stories, I have also weighed the atheist viewpoint on its own merit and have found it a hollow framework that doesn't truly reflect the vibrance and beauty of life. Not that it doesn't stand to reason, necessarily, just that I personally have a hard time accepting it as a viable alternative.
Now, clearly this isn't absolute, as I have also spoken with atheists who seem to have thought it all through quite extensively, and simply aren't bothered by the same things I am, but these seem to be more the exception than the rule.
The truth is, I find the conclusions I reach when considering a god-less existence ranging from truly troubling to just plain illogical. In fact, it's at least partially due to my pondering of these dilemmas that I have since found reconciliation with the things that first troubled me about the Christian viewpoint in the first place.
So, here for you now to consider, I have compiled the primary reasons why I cannot see that a god-less existence can offer an adequate explanation to account for all that existence is.
1. The Origin of the Universe
We have obviously learned quite a lot through science in this modern age. It's only been about 90 years since the Big Bang Theory was first proposed. Before this it was the general consensus amongst the scientific community that the universe was infinite with no beginning and no end to its vast expanse. Nowadays we understand the universe to be finite. Much like the bible described it thousands of years ago, it actually had a beginning. Even time, which once seemed constant and infinite as well, is finite and relative, as it seems it began when the universe did.
Our understanding of matter and energy in this universe has allowed us to actually define the physical laws that govern this universe, and has actually given us the capability to peer billions of years into the past to understand where it all came from by reconstructing a chain of causal events all the way back to the very first moment when this universe first came into being. But it is at that point that we hit a barrier. Because matter and energy began as a singularity of infinite mass, and because we are only capable of studying the matter and energy that resulted from that initial singularity, we are unable to "see" beyond it. Unless we're someday able to actually witness a big bang we have no way of knowing what came "before", though 'before' isn't exactly an accurate term as both time and space as we experience them came into being at that exact same moment. So, technically, there is no 'before'.
For the universe to have expanded, or inflated, into the universe as we know it now, that singularity had to already exist. And the fundamental laws that govern and shape this universe had to already exist within that singularity as one single fundamental force. And those fundamental forces could only be the values they are for us to be here, because if they were even slightly different in value than they are, we wouldn't exist as we do, if at all. Change even one of those values one direction and matter no longer binds together as it does, greatly decreasing the percentage of matter in this universe that eventually formed stars, planetary systems, and eventually us. Change those values the other direction and everything would have been crushed, if the universe were able to inflate out from that initial state at all before collapsing back in on itself.
There are, of course, theories regarding the 'just right' values of these fundamental forces and the way in which matter behaves in the environment they create. And those theories always in some way suggest that this universe is just one of many. Whether it be the same universe expanding out, then collapsing back in on itself back into a singularity that then expands out again, over and over. A theory known as the 'big bounce'. Or, there are other theories that suggest this universe is just one of many that exist all at the same time. Part of a multi-verse, with each universe differing slightly in the values of those fundamental forces, and we find ourselves in the 'just right' universe simply because we actually exist to observe it.
So, it turns out that whether you believe the universe has a creator who deliberately and intelligently designed this 'just so' universe to allow us to exist, or whether you believe we exist in one of the few, if not the only, universe where it's possible for us to exist to even ponder these questions, it's ultimately still a matter of faith. The only answer that is not a proclamation of faith one way or the other is "I don't know". Given this, combined with the other reasons on this list, I find it difficult to accept the god-less existence scenario where the origin of the universe is concerned.
2. Intelligence and Reason Coming About Through an Unintelligent/Purely Causal Process
I also find it difficult to reconcile intelligent reasoning beings capable of fathoming the universe and our place in it coming about in a totally causal, indifferent, chaotic process. While intelligence would certainly prove beneficial from a 'survival of the fittest' evolutionary standpoint, the level of intelligence and the capability to reason inherent in humanity seems well beyond the needs of survival alone.
One thing that science has made painfully clear is just how significant our intelligence and reason really is. These traits found, at least as far as we know, exclusively in humanity, makes us an anomaly, not just amongst the animal kingdom, but in all the universe. The whole reason we're able to establish objective truth via science is because matter and energy behave in very particular ways in accordance with the fundamental laws of the universe. Both the balance of the natural living world, as well as the workings of the entirety of the universe, have been revealed to be an improbably delicate one. The consistency of behavior in both matter and energy, as well as the behavior of living organisms on this planet, is what makes the natural world work so efficiently.
The dawn of reason in humanity means we are the first and only bundles of matter in all the universe, at least to our knowledge, capable of choosing our behavior, not by natural instinct or the inherent nature of the behavior of the matter we're made up of, but through reason. This is a hugely unique and powerful thing. We humans instinctively make the distinction between what is 'natural' and what is 'man-made'. There are things born of the human mind unlike anything else found in the natural world. There are satellites orbiting this earth and a rover rolling around on Mars right now because of it. There are chemicals and materials manufactured that do not break down naturally, and that actually harm the ecosystem of this planet, through our capability to reason. We are able to manipulate and bend the natural world to our will because of our capability to understand it, rather than simply existing in harmony, or at the whim, of the natural world.
Through the theist perspective, this is what its all about. Our behavior. And in that light, in a universe created knowingly and deliberately through an intelligent being, this makes perfect sense. In a god-less scenario, given the consistency of the rest of the natural world, this development in humanity seems exceedingly improbable, if not impossible. Especially through a purely causal process that resulted in just one single species populating and completely altering the landscape of the entire planet where all others simply continue to exist as they always have.
And this reason leads right into number 3 .....
3. Free Will
Whether or not we as humans truly have free will, or whether we are simply the product of our physical make-up where all of our decisions and actions are determined solely by the behavior of the matter we are made up of, is a long-standing philosophical debate. To the determinist, the way in which our mind functions, considering options, imagining possible outcomes for each, remembering past experiences, and employing reason to then choose the best of these competing choices, only makes it seem as if we have a choice. When, in actuality, each decision we make in any given moment is simply the only decision we were physically capable of making.
In a purely material world, where the entirety of reality is nothing more than the physical matter and energy we are able to observe and measure, true free will is simply impossible. Though it may seem as though we have a choice, in actuality matter can only behave as matter behaves. Just as matter can't decide of its own volition whether or not to adhere to the law of gravity, our physical brains could not have chosen any differently in any given situation than it did.
From the theist perspective, an idea that is universal amongst all religions, there is a spiritual/non-physical component of the self. A soul. And because that component is not physical, then it stands to reason that it is not bound so strictly to the laws of the physical world. In that scenario it is perfectly reasonable that we could in fact be in control of our behavior and capable of actually making a choice. From the atheist standpoint, at least the strictly materialist atheist, an actual free will is simply impossible. And even in the case of those atheists who are not strictly materialists, who think of the human mind itself as a non-physical product of a physical brain, a true free will cannot be truly reconciled. Because even if the mind being non-physical made its workings exempt from adherence to the natural laws, without a spiritual soul there is no way a bundle of matter, or the non-physical mind it creates, could be capable of actually making a 'willful' choice. No matter the configuration of matter, no matter whether or not the mind is capable of behaving free of the fundamental laws, at best our choices could only really be random.
4. The Mind/Body Problem
Another philosophical conundrum debated throughout the centuries since the dawn of reason is commonly referred to as the mind-body problem. Basically, how do non-physical thoughts impact the behavior of a physical body? What mechanism in our make-up makes it possible for something as abstract and formless as a non-physical thought to then be translated into physical action, or inaction, in a physical body?
It has been determined in recent decades that even products of the self like emotions have physical causes in the body. There are chemical changes that happen in the body when one is stressed or sad or happy. Yet these emotions generally come about as the result of non-physical thoughts. Whether it be the result of the mind considering the possibility that we are not actually in control of our actions causing one to become depressed, or whether it be an event in the past that reignites the emotions felt in those moments when they first happened, these non-physical thoughts can result in emotions that then have a physical impact on our physical bodies. Thoughts that cause high levels of stress can result in some people experiencing painful hives raised up on their skin. The heart rate can increase. The body can begin to sweat. We can begin to cry and secrete abundant levels of tears from our tear ducts, or we can feel goose bumps up the back of our necks.
To the theist, there is nothing strange about this at all, as the physical body is simply a mechanism through which our spiritual selves interact with the physical world around us. Our bodies are, in fact, a physical extension, in a way, of our spiritual selves, as even a person's natural disposition can have a significant impact on our physical well-being. Like in the way a generally positive outlook can result in better posture than others who have a more pessimistic mood and tend to hunch over and slouch. We've even learned to communicate through body language and facial expressions because they so accurately and visibly reflect our non-physical minds. From the materialist/atheist standpoint, this is all attributed to physical happenings. Physical neurons firing, enacting components in the brain causing action in the body. Like a machine that's always forming new pathways and simply reacting in the ways it's programmed to do so.
And this reason leads quite nicely right into the next ...
5. A Sense of Humor and Our Appreciation of Beauty/Art/Music
Like an intelligent reasoning mind, I also find it difficult to reconcile how these traits that so enrich our lives can have come about in a purely causal, indifferent, callous process of survival. While evolution effectively and logically explains many of the physical forms that living things have taken throughout the millennia on this planet, when it comes to things born of the non-physical, non-observable mind, things get a bit more murky. Social evolution can often at least put forth a reasonable explanation for the emergence of traits like an audible laugh, which could have soothed potentially tense situations when encountering strangers by conveying a sense of levity or serving as a kind of social lubricant in social and even mating practices. Though this is not one and the same as a sense of humor. It doesn't answer the question of why we find some things 'funny'. The same goes for recognizing beauty. From an evolutionary standpoint the recognition of symmetry in a face, or the recognition of 'good genes' in a physical specimen of the opposite sex, can and probably do have significant benefits where procreation is concerned. But this doesn't really translate so well when considering how we find things like a waterfall, or a particularly striking sunset, beautiful. The same goes for music. While there may be something we find soothing about particular sounds, or even the beats between the sounds or the rhythm it creates, that could be associated either with sounds we associate with the environments our ancestors spent the most time in, or rhythms that might sooth us because we maybe associate it with our own heartbeat, or even the heartbeat of our mother while still in the womb, it's difficult to reduce it all to these things alone.
In every case, even if we can formulate a possible explanation for these things coming about through our being forged by a struggle to survive this harsh environment, this means reducing all these things that so enrich our lives to merely being bi-products in our evolution. For example, there's a particular song by the band Radiohead called 'Exit Music (for a film)' that builds to this incredibly powerful crescendo. Layers of sounds are added as the story being told in the lyrics builds towards an emotional out-pour at the end by the band's vocalist that moves me in the moment that crescendo reaches its peak each and every time I hear that song. And I've heard that song countless times. And not only is there that palpable feeling that comes up within me, but there are physical goosebumps that I feel first coming up the back of my neck then down my arms. Every single time.
Again, like in the other examples given, this is perfectly understandable from a theist perspective. That same intelligent being that created the universe and us, in nearly every religion, is said to share the same emotions we do. He can be angry, He can love. He is pleased by smells and songs and poetry. And we, being the creations of this creator, being spiritual beings ourselves, it is perfectly reasonable that these traits that give our lives such texture and pleasure should come about in us and actually cause our bodies to respond physically. But from the atheist perspective, again, I find these hard to reconcile, and saddened by the mere idea that these traits could be nothing more than bi-products. And that sadness, in and of itself and the mere thought, again makes me think the universe being created by a deliberate purposeful creator is the more likely answer.
And just as so many of these do, one leads to another ...
6. The Purpose and Meaning We Assign to Life
This issue I have with the atheist viewpoint has resulted in some of the most emotional responses I think I've heard in these discussions. Even though this seems perfectly logical to me, the mere mention of this cold hard reality actually angers some, though highly respected thinkers amongst the atheist community, like Richard Dawkins, have said much the same thing ....
"This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
No matter how one may react to this, it is simply a true statement. If there is no deliberate creator of the universe, who intentionally created this universe and us as a part of it for a specific reason, then humanity's existence on this planet has no meaning or purpose. And any purpose or meaning we assign to our own lives can only really be a manufactured concept by a brain that, for whatever reason, 'needs' to feel the life it's living is meaningful and has purpose.
More so now than ever, as we have learned in recent decades that the entirety of the universe is finite and will eventually end, there is no escaping this. If we are nothing more than biological machines, with no non-physical soul that can go on once our physical/finite bodies are no longer capable of sustaining life, then death will be much like it was before we were born. Which, at least to our recollection, was simply nothing. Like everything else in this finite existence, we too are finite and have both a definite beginning and a definite end. And without a spiritual element, this is absolute. At best we can feel our lives serve a purpose and have meaning if we can in any way improve the lives of future generations by somehow making the world a better place during our short time here. But even if that is the case, it can only last so long. Those future generations will eventually die and no longer exist as well. And even if we do manage to end wars and resolve our every conflict with one another and learn to live harmoniously with one another so as to not eventually wipe ourselves out, eventually this planetary system that allows us to exist here will become unstable. Our sun will supernova and collapse on itself, as will all the other stars throughout this galaxy and beyond. No matter what we do or how we live, no matter what great accomplishments we manage, in the end the entirety of human existence will be the equivalent of a faint spark on a small fraction of the total timeline of this universe that lit up for just an instant before ultimately fizzling out again into nothingness.
Of course, to the theist, this finite life is simply the precursor to something 'more' on the other side of death's veil. Some see it as preparation, whether it be this one life, or multiple lives in reincarnated forms, there is a spiritual self that will live on once the physical body finally falls. From the atheist standpoint, much like free will, the purpose and meaning we feel our lives have is ultimately nothing more than an illusion.
7. The Phenomenon of Life
What animates animate matter? The engine that drives evolution is the inherent will that all living things have to survive and procreate. To "be fruitful and multiply". To quote Dr. Manhattan, though he's a fictional physicist from a comic book, his words regarding biological organisms at the molecular level are factually true... "A live human body and a dead human body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference." Yet, when an organism is alive it inherently exhibits no less than 6 specific behavioral characteristics; homeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. When an organism is alive it is these traits that biologically define it as 'alive'. When it's dead it, of course, exhibits none of these.
The phenomenon of life itself, as well as death, still to this day lacks clear conceptual definition. Every living thing on this planet today represents the final link in an unbroken chain of ancestors that reaches all the way back to the primordial pool from which life first sprang. In this way all life on the planet can be seen as a kind of collective organism, continually driven to perpetuate itself and continue existing. These behaviors are the physical manifestations of an inherent 'will to live' that all living things share. Life is compelled to live. And not just live, but thrive. Not just maintain, but grow. To become something more. The same inherent will that compelled life to first make use of its evolved locomotive capabilities to climb up onto the land from the sea is the same will that made us what we are today. True, we have evolved and have been forged by the environment in which we live, but without this propellant force in all living things evolution simply would not have happened.
Now some may simply dismiss this as one of the first traits to have randomly mutated in our genetic make-up, which very well may be the case. But it's a difficult question we still struggle to answer. How did life begin? Today some of the components that make up RNA can be created in a lab through 'natural' causes. Elements that conceivably would have existed on this primal earth that result in some of the parts that make up the whole of the process of passing on 'information' to future generations to benefit. But for a living organism to even reach the point that it could benefit from evolution, even the simplest level of organism, it would have to have all 6 of those above traits, as well as the ability to replicate itself, and it would have had to have developed these capabilities without the benefit of previous generations passing on tried and true traits. Just the emergence of a single molecule out of trillions somehow developing the ability to replicate is exceedingly improbable. Given the extensive timeline and the large number of molecules that would have existed, it's not necessarily impossible, but definitely improbable. Add to that everything else and it becomes exceedingly difficult to see how life could have just 'come about'.
Of course, from the theist perspective this is an easy question. Even in the creation account it doesn't describe God physically molding life, but rather imbuing life with an inherent will to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and the seas". From the atheist perspective, well, our greatest scientific minds are still wrestling with the initial onset of life, and biologically those 6 traits are simply seen as a 'given'.
8. Compassion and Altruism
In Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene" he puts forth a rather fascinating concept for how altruism could have come about by showing how 'biological machines' who are selfishly compelled to propagate their own genes could actually be benefited by the emergence of altruism where kin are concerned because even sacrificing themselves for the good of another will still pass on these traits if that other is then able to procreate because of their sacrifice. And it's potentially understandable how these traits first born of evolution could sometimes be seen in the behaviors of animals who are not closely enough related to share genetic code. But compassion, as well as what appears to be a wide array of emotions shared in common and once thought to be solely human, can and have been witnessed throughout the animal kingdom. Primarily in mammals, which have proven to have nurturing traits not found in other types of animals.
For example, I recently saw a documentary regarding the 'odd' relationship between a blind horse and a goat who lived together amongst many other animals in a protected habitat. The horse was not born blind, but became blind over time. From the time when the horse first lost site in one eye this goat became an inseparable partner. At first the goat would always walk on the side of the horse where he could still see, and would guide the horse through the terrain and aid him in where he needed to go. Then, later, when the horse lost site in the other eye, the goat began to walk in front of the horse, allowing the horse to follow the sound of his steps. This went on for many years. And in one case, after a particularly bad storm when the horse was surrounded by brush and unable to find a way out, the goat actually went to the people that managed this habitat and led them to the horse so they could help. Once the horse finally died, the goat simply went back to behaving as he did before, but the goat's health quickly and obviously went downhill once his friend had passed, and died not long after.
Now I recently read an atheist comment on this story as something that counts against the existence of a God, as its often thought in the more traditional religious views, namely those who reject evolution, that humans are not one and the same with the animal kingdom. So, to this individual, this was further proof that that ideology is wrong. And accurately so, as many of these same individuals will not even acknowledge the fact that we are clearly mammals who share quite a lot in common with other mammals. But to the theist, whether they are like me and accept evolution or not, they view these commonalities as being because we all have the same 'designer'. In either case we all come from the same origin, so it's not at all odd that scientists are coming around to the idea that much of the animal kingdom are capable of a similar emotional experience to our own.
Again, from the atheist perspective, I find this hard to reconcile, with the only real explanation being much as Dawkins put it initially, then cropping up in inter-species relationships as a kind of 'unintended' bi-product. To the theist, however, this should make perfect sense.
9. Human Intuition
Acceptance of the atheist viewpoint means acceptance of the fact that human intuition where a higher power is concerned is totally off-base. This one may be more of a personal thing for me, than a purely logical one, but I have a kind of 'faith' in our human intuition that has managed to bring us to where we are today.
Though many atheists will vehemently argue this point, it seems pretty clear to me that the default state of humanity in general is belief in a higher power. I base this conclusion on where and when in human history atheists exist. Or, at least, where there is clear documentation. The first appearance of the atheist viewpoint can be seen in ancient Greece and Rome. But beyond that, from the fall of Rome through to the age of enlightenment in Europe over a thousand years later, atheism appears to have been all but non-existent. It then came about in that age, which continues on through to today. And it seems to ebb and flow with the availability of accumulated knowledge and the adoption of logical/philosophical thought. Based on this it would seem that an atheism viewpoint is not something inherent in the human condition, but rather something arrived at through the practice of reason.
Beyond those two eras, belief in a higher power throughout the entirety of human history seems absolute. In indigenous cultures, like the Aborigines of Australia, the sub-Saharan tribes of Africa, and the native American tribes of the 'new world', animism, or the belief that there is a spirit force that animates the natural world and links mankind to the sun, the wind, the mountains, and the animals, is consistent across the board. Beyond that you've got the Mesopotamian religions of the Sumerians, then Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the mythologies of western Europe like that of Greece and Rome, the eastern European mythologies, and Buddhism and Hinduism throughout Asia. It seems, to me at least, that this clearly illustrates that this is the default state of humanity, where a belief in a higher power must be 'reasoned' away.
Now, this may seem more of an argument FOR atheism than against, but as I've tried to illustrate through the entirety of this list, atheism isn't necessarily 'right' simply because it requires reason to reach it. It is through reason that I first had doubts about the traditional Christian beliefs as they were taught to me through traditional institutions, but it is also through reason that I cannot see a god-less existence standing on its own. The same human intuition that eventually brought us into this modern age of scientific enlightenment and understanding is the same intuition that first manufactured religion. It would seem that those religious ideals that came about throughout our social and societal evolution was an important building block along the way that no one should be so eager to yank from beneath us. I understand the urgency for which some feel we should remove religion, but don't be too quick to toss that bathwater as I think there may be a baby in there.
10. The Bible
I know it's common nowadays to just dismiss the bible as some product of old world ignorance/delusion. I could never take this scenario seriously. I mean, we've all experienced life enough to see how things of interest come and go. It'll be the hot thing for a while, then people lose interest and move on to other things. That never happened with the bible. It's remained relevant and ever-present throughout every age since it was first written. It never just fades away. There are plenty of ancient stories written. So what is it about this one that it sticks around? So we're supposed to buy that it's just some fictitious work made up by desert-dwelling Jews thousands of year ago?
According to the story, especially the earlier ones towards the beginning, this text claims to be a record of a time in human history when a God interacted with people. It turns out that the very thing I would think you should expect to see if those events actually happened, for there to be a palpable impact on human history, is there. That part of the world has been in constant turmoil in every age since its inception.
It seems to me that exactly what you should expect to be true if this text truly were something more than old world folklore is there. It was written who knows when by who knows who exactly, nobody knows. And, it undoubtedly originates in the cradle of civilization where civilization originated. All of these things keep me from dismissing this text as just being the world's oldest piece of fiction or the oldest and most successful form of propaganda.
While I often find myself more at odds with believers than non-believers because I am pro-science and pro-evolution, the atheist movement is troubling to me for many reasons. Though there are certainly exceptions, in my discussions with atheists it seems that for the most part many simply settle on the atheist viewpoint because they've found reason enough to discount traditional religion, but all too often do not seem to have turned that same critical eye towards the atheist view and pondered whether or not this world view truly holds up on its own.
To assume reality will fit within the confines of a purely material box is to pre-define what reality can possibly be. Material science is the best method to date for determining objective truths about reality, but it's highly unlikely it can completely encompass it. So a universe created through intelligent intent is not an assumption I make to make me feel better or to relieve existential angst. In my view I'm simply being realistic.
A purely material/mechanical explanation does not make logical sense to me. When I consider it, not in comparison to any alternative view, but simply on its own merits, it does not hold water. It most definitely defines and gives better understanding of the make-up and mechanics of this place, but when extended out to account for all the intricacies of reality, I find it's ultimately a hollow and highly improbable explanation.
It's kind of like Ptolemy's calculations to track planetary paths across the sky. It was a really complex explanation that did mathematically account for the way the planets appeared to loop in the sky and speed up and slow down at certain points. But the whole concept was built on the idea that the earth was the center of the universe and that all the heavens rotated around it. Copernicus, a thousand years later, simply said "what if" the sun was actually at the center. All of the sudden he also had a mathematical explanation for the planetary paths, but his was much simpler than Ptolemy's because his was built on top of a much more accurate foundation.
Given the evidence, I see intelligent intent being the much more likely explanation for this causal universe. Given that intelligence is indeed a 'natural product' of this universe, it is something that naturally occurs, I do not see how or why consideration of intelligent intent as an explanation is so vehemently opposed as if it were some ludicrous consideration. And given all the unknowns still surrounding intelligence and consciousness and the mind and life itself, I think it's a little premature to think intelligence and reason and creativity only exists in our heads.
The Bible in the Context of Science ...
- God Created Evolution: Reconciling Science and God - A Project Overview
'God Created Evolution' is a project consisting of multiple articles that show how the first 11 books of Genesis fit into the context of known history and accurately describe the emergence of the modern human mind and the dawn of civilization.
- God Created Evolution: Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate
Reading the Genesis creation account in the context of the modern scientific understanding of the earth's geological formation and the evolution of life proves to be incredibly accurate and insightful.
- God Created Evolution: Adam was not the first human, for the bible tells us so
Genesis makes it clear that Adam was not the first human in existence and that the flood was not global. Correcting these misconceptions takes pre-flood Genesis out of the realm of mythology and grounds it firmly in known history.
- God Created Evolution: Cain, His City, and His Descendants
Though Cain was only one of three humans on the Earth according to traditional interpretation, there were 'others' he feared would harm him, he built a city, and his descendants introduced skills that lived on beyond the flood.
- God Created Evolution: The Mysterious Unnamed Characters of Pre-Flood Genesis
Some of the most debated mysteries in all the bible are found in the first few chapters of Genesis. This hub discusses unnamed characters who are casually alluded to, but never explained. Or are they?
Science and History in the context of the Bible ..
- On The Evolution of the Human Mind and the Origin of Free Will: Part 1
Part 1 examines the physical brain itself, its development throughout vertebrate evolution, and discusses what is known and what is still unknown about the physical brain's most mysterious and least understood manifestations.
- On The Evolution of the Human Mind and the Origin of Free Will: Part 2
Part 2 seeks to understand the emergence of the modern human mind by examining changes in behavior throughout human history, where and when they happened, and what the people of that age had to say.
- In Science We Trust?: Are God and Science Incompatible? (Spoiler Alert ... No.)
A majority of the founders of modern science were Christians who studied the natural world as God's creation. Modern science offers deeper insight into God's nature than was ever before possible, offering clarity and understanding.
- Finding Deeper Understanding of God and 'Free Will' in the Context of Modern Science
Rather than reject modern knowledge, this idea embraces it to better define our concept of God in reality as we know it today, informed by the accumulated knowledge of science.