Time magazine just ran an article on Einstein and his views on faith. What really boggles my mind is that our “post-modern”, “progressive” and “educated” culture takes such a negative stance on religion. Seriously, when some of the top scientists of the last two centuries tell us that there is a God, why do we go on dismissing that idea. Do we really think we are smarter or more educated than the people who were brilliant and visionary enough to uncover the laws of this universe in the first place? I see this as a sign of arrogance, maybe because we take our knowledge for granted and cannot imagine what type of a mind it took to discover that knowledge.

Here is a quote from the article: “But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. “There are people who say there is no God,” he told a friend. “But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos,” he explained.

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. “The fanatical atheists,” he wrote in a letter, “are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres. [...] The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” “

Religion has been a hot topic of discussion in the media lately, this being the most celebrated week in the Christian calendar. Generally speaking, the news I read tend to portray religion negatively but lo and behold there are glimpses of hope now and again. I was really glad to see this article just a day after I happened to make my own post “Call Me Unreasonable”. Dr. Collins actually touches on a lot of experiences that have been very similar to those in my life and reiterates my point about intelligent messages. I would encourage everyone to read this article in full, but here are some excerpts that I really agree with.

“I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God’s language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God’s plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked “What do you believe, doctor?”, I began searching for answers. [...]

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist’s assertion that “I know there is no God” emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” [...]

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. ”

In my personal experience, I have met many brilliant scientists of diverse disciplines who have reiterated the same point as Dr. Collins so I tend to think I am not that crazy when I say that science and religion complement each other. I arrived at this particular point in my life not because I was searching for a deity but because I wanted to find truth. I did not grow up with a religion nor did I ever intend to have, what I considered, a burden placed upon me. But my views have changed because I believe I have discovered some of that truth I was seeking, even though it led me in an entirely different direction. Somewhat sadly, one of the realizations that I face is that I cannot show this truth to others because it is a highly personal journey. The path to God starts with a question. A person must be willing to at least consider the evidence and ask what C.S. Lewis called a “dangerous question” (for atheists, at least). Ask God to reveal himself. Of course, just like everybody else, I have no control over human will. The willingness to consider God has to come from within.

You know, I really get discouraged when people (sometimes atheists, sometimes agnostics) state that religion is unreasonable and men of faith go along with that presupposition without challenging it. Of all the debates about God’s existence, only a few get down to the very core of whether it is reasonable to begin with, to believe in God. Granted, I do not have a vast amount of theistic knowledge to claim that I know otherwise, but from the literature I read and from scripture itself, it is evident to me that we must use our minds along with whatever else drives us to believe: “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” – Mark 12:30.

Just this evening I received the newest issue of Newsweek (April 9, 2007 – yes, I know, apparently they come out a week early), and it has a huge article on the topic of God. Obviously, with the advent of science, our world view has been drastically expanded and altered. It is expected that a sharp, reasonable mind will question dogma, whether secular or religious, and uncover inconsistencies. But since when did that make the truth less true? Just because Newton did not discover the relativistic laws of gravity does not mean that his conclusions about gravity as a force are false. Religious dogma, just as scientific dogma, requires correction at times. Does a scientific discovery that the world is round necessitate dismissal of God? Science is full of special statements, called theories, that are built on the premise that they are not exact because they are human interpretations of the world around us. Certain religious claims are just that – theories – interpretations of the word of God. Religion and science simply deal in different realms. Traditionally, religion has been slow to recognize its own inconsistencies so maybe that is why it gets a bad rap. But I keep seeing more and more evidence that just like science it is a self-correcting entity that is very firm and true at the core and is still expanding (and correcting) at the fringes (in no small part thanks to science!). And by the way, science also has its share of inconsistencies, except that here we call them “paradoxes”. Regardless, I fail to see the merit in the claim that just because human interpretation is fallible, we must discard an entire discipline.

I should also say that I fail to see how atheistic claims are in any way more reasonable (in regards to God) than theistic claims. As Geisler and Turek, very acutely, point out, atheists rule out a theistic force at work prior to examining evidence for a case. So that when they look at a case, they can only come up with theories that do not involve a deity. Hearing some of these theories, I cannot help but wonder how such knowledgeable and intelligent minds can come up with such garbage! Here again, Geisler and Turek have a great example.

Let’s say you wake up one morning and go to the kitchen where you find…

More »« Less