Atheism on Trial?

Losing My Religion

Losing My Religion (Photo credit: Cayusa)

I have been reading a lot of comments on Facebook and other blogs about how Atheists view Christians as dumb ignorant folk who fail to see the evidences of Science.  So I guess the question is, what does the “evidence” of science really tells us?

A close look at “Science” tells us one thing….it’s not infallible.  Theories are consistently changing to reflect new evidences.  This is a good thing since science is largely based on the testing, exploring, and retuning of theories. There’s nothing wrong with that.  However, a true scientist knows that to discredit anything without testing it is absurd.  Even if a subject is untestable, a legitimate scientist will state just that: that the matter is untestable.  He will not result to belittling people of different beliefs.  In fact, the scientific community is filled with different beliefs, all based on research and evidences.

One of the things that I always find a bit unreasonable if you will is the double standard applied from those who ardently seek to discredit anything religious.  It is claimed that Religious people act without reason.  However, those who align themselves with “science” are constantly relying on their ever changing theories to dogmatically refute those who believe in God.  The interesting thing about this scenario is the changes in the scientific theories are usually based on the same evidences, just studied differently with different technology (of-course this makes sense, newer technology allows us to study things in ways we were never able to before).  For example, the evolution of Classical mechanic theory to General Relativity demonstrates an evolution from a well stated theory, to an expanded theory based on new findings due to technological advances and different thinking applications.  It’s worth restating that this evolution is expected.  However, with something that is evolving as these theories tend to do, I find it hard to understand dogma; especially when some of them are based on assumptions.

English: The Big bang Theory using simple type...

English: The Big bang Theory using simple typefaced font Español: The Big Bang Theory usando este tipo de letra simples Português: Logotipo de The Big Bang Theory. Русский: 16 упорядоченных букв, образующих фразу “теория большого взрыва”. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For example, the Big Bang Theory depends on two major assumptions; physical laws and cosmological principle.  The cosmological principle states (I’m simplifying this explanation for all our sakes) that in general the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (or the same/uniform in all directions).  A person can develop all the mathematical models they want, but at the end of the day, the only way to know if the universe is uniform in all directions is to physically go there and see.  That of course is beyond our present capabilities of travel.  Therefore its assumed that this universal homogeneity is existent and based on this assumption (all you need is one assumption to base a theory on an assumption) we have the Big Bang Theory.   Yet scientists will entertain the notion of this theory as opposed to entertain any biblical notions which are consistently proving to be true.  For example, today everyone knows that Babylon was one of the most powerful nations of ancient history. However, before any archeology discovered this ancient civilization, the bible had already described it.  There were many skeptics who used Babylon to say that the bible was not a credible and reliable book.  Yet in 1898, Babylon was discovered and excavated (and added to our history books).  The point here is that scripture stated that there was a Babylon when the whole world believed otherwise and yet scripture was right.  Another example, scientists have found that the stories in scripture are not necessarily impossible.  For example,  to explain the flood in the scriptures “researchers have suggested that, during a warming period in the cycle of the Earth’s temperature around 5600BC, melting glaciers caused an onrush of seawater from the Mediterranean. This cascaded through Turkey’s Straits of Bosporus – dry land at the time – to the Black Sea, transforming it from a freshwater lake into a vast saltwater inlet. In 1997, drawing on archaeological and anthropological evidence, Colombia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman claimed that ‘ten cubic miles of water poured through each day’, and that the deluge continued for at least 300 days. More than 60,000 square miles of land were flooded, and the lake’s level rose by hundreds of feet after merging with the Mediterranean, triggering mass animal migrations across Europe.”

(Read more:–How-science-backs-Bibles-best-stories.html#ixzz1xUtAHQTM)

That’s just one of the stories.  Yet if you look at the comments left on the site mentioned above, you’ll notice the animosity of some to not even consider what is being presented by the researchers.


Atheism (Photo credit: atheism)

Ultimately, I feel, is not about science or the validity of God.  It’s truly about an attack on anything that has to do with religion.  Whether the religious claim is true or not, it doesn’t matter.  They are not willing to take into account the possibilities of some of these acts and even the existence of a true and awesome God.  (Disclaimer:  This is not the case with everyone.  I know many atheists who will at least tackle this issue with integrity and open mildness, to which I am grateful since they challenge me intellectually as I hope I do to them.)

With that said, I believe in God in light of the evidences both of the “scientific” community and the religious one.   Coming to college has given me the ability to know how to research and that has aided me greatly in my pursuit of truth.  It’s my opinion that this debate is really not that complicated if a person is willing to put in the time and research.  What will you find if you do put in the time and research?  I’ll give you a hint.  Both sides present very sound arguments yet neither side truly discredits the other one.  At least not on concrete proof since the “scientific” community relies on theories which are based on some assumptions and Christianity ultimately boils down to faith.  Both sides have evidences supported by research and facts (atheists will probably disagree with that statement).

Ultimately, in light of both arguments, I choose to follow Christ.  Ultimately, everything will be known.  Honestly I have lost everything and yet nothing at all by following Christ.  Given the chance, I would do it again. (Except this time I would hope I would do a better job at it lol).

Juan Castillo Jr.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s