Real scientists do not believe in God?

Letter received

My response

My site doesn't say that evolution didn't happen, nor that it did happen. What it does do is to challenge us to consider whether there is really enough evidence and basis in reason to conclude that evolution alone explains the ORIGIN of life and to contemplate the implications of that.

In my experience, it's only when our beliefs are challenged that we really seek more deeply into issues, so your hate for my site may just indicate that there is something within it that you prefer not to accept, but don't really have the answers to deny. If that's the case, why not push for deeper understanding of another's experience and views rather than expressing hate? Which is the higher path, the true source to greater knowledge and wisdom?

If my questions seem silly and easily answerable to you, I do have some that I would sincerely like to have answered, because I have yet to find truly satisfactory answers.

How does evolution, a process of change and adaptation in LIVING organisms, serve as evidence for inanimate matter forming life on its own?

Which came first: The cell, which is the only place that DNA exists, or DNA which contains all the instructions for creating the cell? How could either exist without, or before, the other?

If Louis Pasteur proved in the 1800's that spontaneous generation of life does not happen, why do we still cling to it today in explaining life's origins?

Why do the explanations of life's origins keep changing from one decade to the next; from pools of organic soup to undersea thermal vents to seeding by comets?

Is the evidence for life forming on it's own so compelling or is it just that the implications that we may be created are so objectionable?

I look forward to learning whatever insights you can provide.

Regards,

Gary

P.S. Also see my site Snapshots of God.

Letter received

My response

I am Indian, Hindu.  I do not believe in any religion.  

Religion is superstition to me.  I believe in SCIENCE only.  During my childhood my parents asked me to pray the God. I did it.   But when I reached certain age, I started studying about science.   we have the subject about evolution.   I came to know that religion can not prove a single thing about what it is saying.  In this world there are different religions.  Even though each religion says about God,  they are very different.   Every religion thinks that, their religion is great and real.  I do believe in the historical part of (which is having evidence) any religion.  

Prophet Mohammed was lived long time back.  But he cheated all Muslims that god send him as messenger.  

Christ was lived long time back.  But he cheated all Christians (including you) that god send as messenger.

In Hindu religion Krishna, Siva etc gods are imaginary characters only.  They are not real.  

The main reason for this is that the people in those days are ignorant.  There is no science available that time to explain about the origin of life.  

Comes to the answers to your silly questions.  ...
-------------------------------------------

How does evolution, a process of change and adaptation in LIVING organisms, serve as evidence for inanimate matter forming life on its own?

Ans:-

First of all evolution time scale is in terms of billions or millions of years.  It took long time for non living matter different gases ) to become living matter amino acids etc ).from amino acids the single cell organisms developed.  from that single cell organism multicell organisms are developed.  gradually human being is developed from apes or monkeys.

----------------------------------------------------
Which came first: The cell, which is the only place that DNA exists, or DNA which contains all the instructions for creating the cell? How could either exist without, or before, the other?

Ans:-

As I already told DNA is also a chemical substance (Acid) which is formed from different gases.  so DNA is first and living cell is formed from the DNA and other acids.  

------------------------------------------------------
If Louis Pasteur proved in the 1800's that spontaneous generation of life does not happen, why do we still cling to it today in explaining life's origins?

Ans :-

The scope of his theory is limited.  He never said from where the germs came from.  

------------------------------------------------------
Why do the explanations of life's origins keep changing from one decade to the next; from pools of organic soup to undersea thermal vents to seeding by comets?

Ans :-
Anybody can come up with any idea.  but it has some historical evidence (fossils etc ). Nobody knows that the hierarchy of living things.  But scientists are guessing based on fossils that are found at different times.

Remember,  we are talking about billions of years,  not hundred or thousands of years.  I agree that so far there is no strong practical proof about evolution other than Miller experiment.  It will be proved, if not today,  tomorrow.

Can you explain why there are different groups in Christians,  i.e., some believe Christ as god,  some believe he is messenger. 
 

-----------------------------------------------------

Is the evidence for life forming on it's own so compelling or is it just that the implications that we may be created are so objectionable?

I do believe we came from monkeys or apes.  so we are social animals.  We have thousands of living and non living things on earth.  it will take time to make exact hierarchy of nonliving and living things.

You asked "Can you explain why there are different groups in Christians, i.e., some believe Christ as God, some believe he is messenger?" In the Bible, you find that He is both. Clearly He is a messenger of God's word, but He also refers to Himself as being one with God, and even accepted worship of others, which would be blasphemy if He were not God. God appearing in human form is of course not all that God is, nor is it totally comprehensible to the human mind, so there are many interpretations. The answer to your question is best found not in the opinions of men, but in your own study of the words of Christ. He called Himself one with God, the Son of God and the Son of Man. His meaning and identity are questions that each of us must answer after studying His life, and there are few lives in history that are more interesting or that had as great an impact on mankind.

As to different groups of "Christians," in truth Christ never intended there to be division. While there are Catholics, Episcopals, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc, these splits happen only when people put their self-centered opinions ahead of the teachings of Christ, whom they say they follow, and depart from His teaching in the process. If you read the words of Christ, you find he desired unity, not division, and made it quite clear what it meant to be His follower:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. {35} By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:20-23)

Humans are imperfect and we have ways of putting our own interests ahead of those of others, and of God's, whether it be in religion, government or within your own family. I agree with you that there are parts of the Hindu scripture that would appear to be based in ignorance or myth. If you read the Bhagavad-Gita, however, you find the same central message the pervades Judaism, Islam and Christianity: All that really matters is your personal relationship with God, not rituals, not "religion." The sad fact that many people completely miss the true meaning of worship steers many people away from God, but it happens with people in every faith.

I was very much like you in my beliefs. I abandoned any religious upbringing I had and made science my truth, my God in essence. Over time I began to see that while science is a great tool, to some it becomes a system of belief which requires as much faith as any religion.

If you have time to respond, I have a few questions for you.

You said that Christ "cheated" us in saying He was a messenger of God. What leads you to say that? Have you studied His teachings for yourself?

You said it took long time for non living matter (different gases ) to become living matter (amino acids etc ), and from amino acids to single cell organisms. Can you offer ANY evidence at all that this REALLY happened or is this just something you have chosen to accept in faith in order to explain the view you wish to hold of the universe?

You said DNA is a chemical substance which is formed from different gases so DNA is first and living cell is formed from the DNA. I see two problems here. First, DNA breaks down if it is not protected by the cell, so how could it exist before the cell? Second, the acids formed by Miller-Urey experiments are nothing at all like DNA, so what is your basis for assuming that this is what really happened? See HERE for more.

You accept on faith that science will one day prove what you believe. Are your beliefs really based in science then, or are they based in faith and on conjecture of how life would have to have formed to support an atheistic view of the universe? When you read the writings of "scientists" like Dawkins or Gould, how much of what they write is true to the discipline of science and how much is an expression of their own passion for humanism and atheism? Aren't these really religions in themselves but with mankind and science in the role of God?

Thank you for the dialogue. If you care to respond, I would be happy to answer any other questions you may have. If not, I hope you will pursue the truth by exploring all possibilities, for that is the nature of science, is it not? You may find other of my thoughts on getting past the haze of religion to deeper understandings at Snapshots of God.

Best regards,

Gary

Letter received

My response

To follow good things and do the same,  one need not follow religious teachings.  just common sense is more than sufficient.

I can darely say that,  in the ancient times, where the science is not well developed,  man, keep on asking him self, who is responsible for this whole universe.  but no answers found, because, he is ignorant.  But over the time, the concept of religion came from human ignorance.  

Can you please answer my following questions.

1. We are all know that,  without sexual intercourse (based on science )there is no human birth but how do you accept one virgin woman (Mary )can give birth to child (Christ). Can you prove it scientifically.

2. if you believe that, there is a soul, lives with human, why can't other living organisms do not have. 

3. if we are all sons of God, why God created single cell organisms (which causes diseases) and volcanoes, cyclones, floods, earth quakes, AIDS, cancer to kill his own sons. 

4. can you explain gender of God. 

5. If the god treats every body equal,  why God allows only Christians people to the heaven, when they die.
 

Why do you assume that one must choose between science and God?  Many, if not most, scientists believe in God.  You say that science is recognized by experts from all over the world, but there are three problems with this as a line of reasoning.  First, science limits itself to naturalistic explanations and does not even address the REASONS for our existence, so what possible value would "scientific" conclusions on God have anyway?  Second, to rely solely on science is to base your belief on a body of knowledge that is incomplete and constantly changing.  One could have made all the same arguments that you made about supporting science in the 1700's, yet most of what they believed about life would have been wrong as it predated our knowledge of the cell, DNA, genetics, etc.  Certainly much of what we believe to be true now will be outdated in 300 years again, so how can you believe it with absolute certainty?  Third, while the discipline of science is great, men are fallible and often misapply science to support their own beliefs about God.  Do some research on Piltdown man or Miller-Urey to see what I mean.  There are perhaps more contradictions and changes in scientific knowledge than in spiritual knowledge, so why do you reject one on this basis and not the other?  To get a more balanced view I would recommend some of the books on evidence for God listed at my page HERE.  This is a very deep, complex issue and you won't get to the truth by just clinging to a narrow version presented by one side.

I will do my best to answer the questions you have asked.  Please understand that these are just my own beliefs or interpretations.

1. we are all know that,  without sexual intercourse (based on science )there is no human birth. but how do you accept one virgin woman (Mary )can give birth to child (Christ). Can you prove it scientifically.

The Christian belief is that God conceived Christ in Mary.  If God indeed created life itself, this would be a quite simple feat, wouldn't it?  Even our cloning experiments may suggest that adult creatures may someday be grown from a single cell.  Now a question for you:  Everything we know about life says that life only comes from life, not from non-living matter.  How do you accept that non-living matter gave rise to complete living organisms?  Can you prove it scientifically?  This, by the way, is a major contradiction of science, a theory for which there is no evidence or basis in reason.  Why do you accept it other than for the simple reason that you MUST accept it if you do not wish to believe in God?

2. if you believe that, there is a soul, lives with human, why can't other living organisms do not have.  

I do believe that there is a living spirit within humans.  I have no basis to say that other living organisms have them or do not have them, so there is no inconsistency of belief here, just absence of knowledge or experience.

3. if we are all sons of God, why God created single cell organisms which causes diseases) and volcanoes, cyclones, floods, earth quakes, AIDS, cancer to kill his own sons.  

Clearly microorganisms are an essential part of the biological balance of life.  We need bacteria to turn dead tissue back into the dirt and dust from which new life springs.  We even need bacteria in our digestive systems to digest food.  I can't explain everything in God's plan, but I will say several things:  What we perceive to be pain and misfortune from a physical, mortal perspective usually teaches us very valuable spiritual lessons about the truly important aspects of life.  A God who loves us would have to provide us real choices which must have real consequences for them to have real meaning.  Without choice, we would be little more than dogs programmed to wag our tales.  If we are truly eternal beings though, them God is not at all "killing" his own sons but rather creating a wonderful environment in which we can live and learn critical lessons about true life, eternal life.  Try looking at the world from God's perspective where it's your eternal spiritual growth and development that is important rather than your temporary physical comfort.  From a human perspective, would you argue that your elementary education should be devoid of all setbacks, pain and consequences?  In your development as a child, didn't you have to experience some difficulties to grow and progress to the next level?

4. can you explain gender of God.  

My own interpretation is that God doesn't have a gender in the sense of our physical genders, because God is not physical.  We often refer to God as Him, but my understanding of God from study and prayer suggests that He embodies the best of qualities of both the male and female human genders.  Males tend to be more goal oriented whereas females tend to be more relationship oriented.  Humans who reach the highest stages of development of character, self-actualization or enlightenment demonstrate qualities typically associated with each gender, including love, compassion, wisdom, strength, integrity, etc..

5. If the god treats every body equal,  why God allows only Christians people to the heaven, when they die.

Here's how I see it:  Christ said that He was one with God, and that people come to God only through Him.  If He was indeed one with God, then everyone who turns to God is a "Christian" in the broad sense, or if you don't like that wording, everyone who turns to God is in essence turning to Christ because He is the human incarnation of God.  If you read the Bible (or even the Bhagavad-Gita with respect to Arjuna) Christ didn't come to start a religion but to reconcile man's relationship with God.  In the end, whether you call yourself a Christian, a Moslem, a Jew, a Hindu or whatever, the true meaning is found in your personal RELATIONSHIP with God, not in the rules or denominations of the religion that gave you your introduction to Him.  No matter what religion you are a part of, the only thing that makes it meaningful is getting past the religion ABOUT God and on to the relationship WITH God that changes the way you live your life, following His will rather than your own ego.  God gives us that choice out of love, because our love for Him must be given freely to Him by our own choice.  We are the ones who chose to be with Him or reject Him.  He does not reject us.

I hope you find this helpful.  What I most wanted to write you about was your comment that Jesus cheated the world because He said he came from God.  I ask you, if He was a cheat, why then do people 2,000 years later, such as myself, have EXPERIENCES that convince them of the truth of Christ's existence as the living savior who reconciles us to God.  If he was a cheat, wouldn't his influence have died out long ago?  Why would anyone believe the words of a carpenter who roamed the hills of Jerusalem for a mere three years if there wasn't something more to the story?  I would also express my opinion that it is Darwin who cheated people because he gave them a reason to not believe in God without having real evidence to back up his theories or claims.  100 years later, scientists use Darwin as their foundation but do not even believe in the gradualistic development of life that was the basis of his entire theory because the evidence in genetics and the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT Darwin's theory.  Instead science has turned to punctuated equilibrium and comets that started life, both of which are without evidence.  Do you see the contradiction here?

Below are the questions I asked in my last e-mail.  I'd still be interested in your responses:

You said that Christ "cheated" us in saying He was a messenger of God.  What leads you to say that?  Have you studied His teachings for yourself?

You said it took long time for non living matter (different gases ) to become living matter (amino acids etc ), and from amino acids to single cell organisms.  Can you offer ANY evidence at all that this REALLY happened or is this just something you have chosen to accept in faith in order to explain the view you wish to hold of the universe?

You said DNA is a chemical substance which is formed from different gases so DNA is first and living cell is formed from the DNA.  I see two problems here.  First, DNA breaks down if it is not protected by the cell, so how could it exist before the cell?  Second, the acids formed by Miller-Urey experiments are nothing at all like DNA, so what is your basis for assuming that this is what really happened?  See HERE for more.

You accept on faith that science will one day prove what you believe.  Are your beliefs really based in science then, or are they based in faith and on conjecture of how life would have to have formed to support an atheistic view of the universe?  When you read the writings of "scientists" like Dawkins or Gould, how much of what they write is true to the discipline of science and how much is an expression of their own passion for humanism and atheism?  Aren't these really religions in themselves but with mankind and science in the role of God?

God is the only one who can make you believe in God.  I can only offer you enough of my own experiences and learnings to hopefully make you interested enough to pursue God on your own through study, prayer and contemplation.  There are many great books to read which will give you a more balanced view on God and science than the one you hold.  Some links from my other site are as follows:

On evidence for God
On the completeness of science
On God's contact with us
On the completeness of knowledge
On Christ as the way to God

I wish you the best in your pursuit of knowledge and truth.  Let me know if I can serve you in any way.  I don't want you to believe as I do.  I just want you to open your mind and heart enough to get close enough to God to experience Him for yourself.  May He bless you with faith and wisdom.

Best regards,

Gary

Letter received

My response

please see the following URL.  

www.cnn.com/1999/HEALTH
/12/10/simplest.cell/

and wait for some time, until the scientists find the secret.   Then we will talk about that.  we have learned about living cell and nonliving atom.  Right now no body knows how to produce living cell from atom or molecule.  if it is done,  it is very easy to produce  any desired living organism, in your terms man will play the role of God.

Real scientist do not believe in God.   He believes in his own abilities gained by himself.  

Thanks.

"It is never ending story.  .. and answers are not satisfactory on either side."

If the answers are not satisfactory from either side alone though, then doesn't that make it more important yet to consider both sides in your search for knowledge and truth?

There is something I do not understand:  By whose teaching or what basis in reason do you conclude that one must choose BETWEEN science and God rather than EMBRACE BOTH?

What is the basis for your statement that "real scientists do not believe in God?"  How does not believing in God make one a "real scientist."  Doesn't it simply make one an real atheist?  Consider these quotes:

ALBERT EINSTEIN
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

"One thing I have learned in a long life—that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike."

STEPHEN HAWKING
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron. .  .  .   The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

DR. WERNER VON BRAUN
"Atheists all over the world have... called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator."

THOMAS ALVA EDISON
"Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge."

These men are all great scientists.  They hold a range of beliefs about God, but they all shared one thing:  an awe and a humility for the magnificence of life and the universe that let them see beyond themselves and see the smallness of their own intellect. You will find a range of beliefs about God among scientists, from zealous atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould, to those with profound faith in God as our Creator, like Johannes Kepler and Werner Von Braun.  The difference is not found in scientific prowess, but rather in personal experiences and egos.  Intellectual pride is one of the greatest barriers that keeps people of high intelligence from experiencing the presence of God in their lives, for their intelligence means so much to their identity that they cannot conceive nor accept an intelligence so much greater than their own.  Is that enlightened science and wisdom at work or just blind pride and arrogance?

Wisdom has a humility that allows one to learn from others and from life itself.  Great science is not based on one's beliefs about God.  It is based on faithful application of the scientific method, which REQUIRES that we always be open to new knowledge and all the possibilities, always seeking to explore and test the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.  Is there anything worse in science than those who ignore evidence or manipulate data to support preconceptions that they wish to be true?  How can one possibly use science to say there is no God and still be true to the discipline of science?

On your link:  Even if we succeed in making a single cell organism, does man become God or are we still just duplicating knowledge that already exists?  Where did that knowledge come from?  If humans create software that can create simpler software, is that software then human?  Could we call an accomplishment of creating a cell a great demonstration of intelligence yet attribute to chance the original organism from which our blueprint had come?  Even if we do create a single cell organism, where did the laws and properties of matter and energy come from that allow anything to "exist?"  How would this feat compare to the creation of a human being, with 75 trillion cells all working in dozens of interdependent biological systems to create intelligence and self-awareness?

You say that a scientist "believes in his own abilities gained by himself."  A question for you:  What have you, or any of us, really gained by ourselves?  Your entire capacity for intellectual thought was GIVEN to you in your DNA at the moment of your conception, was it not?  Have YOU added to that capacity in any way or just begun to fill the vessel which you were given?  Is our science a process of creation of new knowledge or largely a discovery of knowledge already in existence?  Yes, we have made wonderful scientific discoveries and applied the knowledge gained to advance mankind, but we are BORN with all our capabilities for thought, language, reasoning, emotion, creativity, intellect, etc.  None of us made this ourselves.  We just try to fulfill the potential of all that has been given us, and none ever reach that potential.  Even Leonardo Da Vinci expressed regret just before his death that he had not accomplished and completed more.

Science is a wonderful discipline and tool for acquiring knowledge.  I love it too, but it has significant limitations.  It may teach you about the biological processes in life, it will not teach you about the things that have meaning and value in life.  It can add to your intelligence about life, but not your wisdom about living.  If you want to grow in your capacity to love others, to understand the effects of pride in human relationships or to gain deep insights into human nature that lead us to believe what we believe, you must go beyond science.

I don't expect you to believe anything just because I say it.  It is my hope, however, that our correspondence will encourage you to look beyond the sterile boundaries of atheism masquerading in the name of science.  A scientist cannot be an atheist because the scientist by definition must explore and test alternatives and an atheist by definition has already eliminated the alternative of God without exploring or testing.  There is much more to life than science can reveal and you will be missing an invaluable element of life if you always see it as you have expressed in your letters.  It took me 40 years to realize my own mistake of having too much pride in my intellect and reliance on reason and science.  Through my sites, I hope to help you and others to avoid the same mistake and the consequences in life that come with it.  I hope to open your heart and mind to your pursuit of God and all that comes with this.  I wish you the best.  Let me know if I can be of service.

Best regards,

Gary

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."  Herbert Spencer

"Religion and science are opposed.  .  .   but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."  Sir William Bragg

Letter received

My response

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/
DailyNews/darwingene020207.html

In my view,  it is very unfortunate that less than 50% of Americans believe in Evolution and also it is very very unfortunate that biologists believe in creation.  Those who are mad at religion, should not become scientist, because he can not give 100% justification to his profession.  

I am sure one day will come to shut all the mouths of creationists.  

Can you give me the evidence of creation and if you can, who told,  when it happen (approximate years ).

"There's an awful lot more to a species change than eliminating some legs. In effect, all they've produced is a crippled shrimp."
"It's a good example of how mutations can yield a loss of information, but that doesn't show how new species gain new features — like a set of wings where before there were none."
"McGinnis acknowledges his team's studies can't explain all the changes that must have occurred for shrimp-like animals to evolve into insects."

Couldn't this mechanism in the genes be the result of intelligent design just as easily as random processes?

Two people can look at the same evidence though and come to different conclusions.  In truth, it's not the evidence that matters, but how our underlying beliefs influence the way we see the evidence.  If I argued from your viewpoint, I could just as argue that computers and the Internet are also the products of evolution.

As to when creation occurred, current evidence shows that life first appeared billions of years ago and when it appeared it literally exploded into existence in the Pre-Cambrian explosion.  How do we explain that?  When it happened isn't important though.  How and why life appeared are the more meaningful questions.  It seems that you are letting the debate over the EVOLUTION of life, a PROCESS of change in LIVING organisms, distract you from focusing on the ORIGIN of life.  The more you learn about the complex biological machine we call a single cell, the less you can attribute its existence to random forces acting on non-living matter.

As you noted in your last letter, "Those who are mad at religion should not become scientists because they cannot give 100% justification to his profession."  Perhaps you are not "mad" at religion, but it seems clear that you are very negative towards it and have already made up your mind about the existence of God.  If that is the case, hold can you hold these views in the name of science?

You haven't answered any of the challenges I have posed to you, so I do not understand why you are so confident in your statements for evolution.  How can you be sure that God doesn't exist?  More importantly, what are the reasons that you do not want God to exist?

As to evidence for creation, consider these two:

1)  All non-living matter favors increasing randomness and homogeneity, settling to lower levels of energy.  Life, by contrast, demonstrates increasing order, complexity, intelligence and uniqueness.  There is no evidence or basis in reason to assume that non-living matter would give rise to life.

2)  Life demonstrates incredible and undeniable information, technology and wisdom in its design.  Is there any reason at all that this intelligence is better evidence for evolution than for creation, that intelligence is the product of nothing rather than a greater intelligence?

In the end, the best evidence for God and creation is not found in anything I tell you or in scientific experiments, but in your own exploration of the spiritual dimension of life, the pursuit that lets you see with a deeper understanding of life and a sense of the presence of its Creator.  I hope you will pursue God with an open mind and an open heart, for those who do find it to be the most meaningful part of life.

Best regards,

Gary