Genetic Adam and Eve Could Have Been Contemporaries, Scientists Say

It may be the Word of God, but we humans have a way of each understanding it quite differently (witness the many different religious groups who differ on fundamental issues, but all claim the Bible as their authority.) My reading of the Bible might well lead to a different understanding than yours (as is evident from our previous exchange).

Of course I wasn’t trying to actually undermine your faith. I merely was pointing out one reason why Pascal’s wager is a weak argument. It does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that God exists. In fact, it has been used in the opposite way to conclude that it’s safer to not believe in any God at all. To wit: if I choose to believe in the Christian God, then I’ll be punished by Krishna (I don’t know enough about Hinduism to know if that is truly what Hindus believe, just using Krishna as an example). If I choose to believe in Krishna, then the Christian God will punish me for all eternity. I’m better off just not believing in any god, and hopefully whichever (if any) actually exist will be forgiving.

I suspect (since I’m not one, I don’t know, but I have had discussions with many) that most atheists are not atheists based on faith, but rather on lack of evidence. Most know that nothing is ever proven in science. In fact, it is scientists themselves who will most freely admit that we haven’t figured everything out yet, otherwise there’d be no need to pursue science any more.

Almost all the atheists I’ve ever dealt with point mainly to the lack of evidence for God. If you don’t accept the Bible as an authority (doing so does require faith) then evidence for God is in fact lacking. That’s really what faith is: believing WITHOUT evidence. Atheists simply don’t have faith; they must have evidence to be convinced. I strongly suspect that if God, just for an example, wrote in big letters on the moon “I am God and I exist”, that very few atheists would remain atheists. There would now be evidence.

I strongly suspect that if God, just for an example, wrote in big letters on the moon “I am God and I exist”, that very few atheists would remain atheists. There would now be evidence.

LOL. I see "I am God and I exist" when I look at a full moon on a clear night.

In your explanation, you point out that lack of evidence is given as the reason for their (atheists) lack of faith. Yet when we get down to it, the root question is at the very foundation of Science and faith. Where did we come from and why?

I contend that science doesn't answer this any better than faith. And to believe in any theory that has been proposed regarding the origins of the universe takes.... Faith. Science is easier to "believe" because we can turn water to ice and call it science (which it is). Things associated with science can be observed with senses. Things with faith have to be experienced. If a soul has never experienced such things that our faith bestows upon us, it is hard to simply explain.? How can an atheist cherish life and not fear death, thus living in fear? They must then be sure of the futile and insignificant thing their own existence is?

No, I think maybe you missed my point. Lack of evidence is not reason for atheists’ lack of faith. Lack of faith is the reason that they require evidence. Your example is a good one. You look at the moon and see “I am God and I exist” because you have faith. An atheist, who lacks faith, sees a ball of rock that arose from natural processes. They would need to see direct evidence of God before they would believe.

As far as science goes, I think you are reading your religion into science. The scope of science is limited, and scientists are the first ones who will tell you this (and I am a scientist myself, so I do know what I’m talking about). Science does not and cannot make value judgements. For example, how humans came to be on earth is a valid question in evolutionary theory. Why people are on earth is not. What the early universe looked like and the changes it underwent as it developed is a valid question for big bang theory. Why and to what purpose it happened is not.

The problem many have is that, while science does not make value judgements, many scientists do. What they are doing when they do so is not science, however. If a particular scientist states that evolution shows that God doesn’t exist, that’s not a scientific finding, but rather an opinion of a particular scientist. You would not say that Christianity is to blame when a priest molests a child, right? Certainly such actions are against all moral teachings of Christianity. Not everything a priest (or pastor, etc) says or does is reflective of Christian thought. In similar vein, not everything a scientist does or says is reflective of scientific thought.

Stremba,

Well stated. I’m impressed with the depth and sincerity of this dialogue. I believe I have learned something in a different perspective.

I now see a chicken and egg conundrum concerning the source of an individual’s “lack of faith” in a deity.

As I stated previously, I have reconciled my faith with science. I have no conflicts and believe they are related to the extent that science can be explained as the how God did (or does) it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.