Sadly, the last few days have been spent reading about the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords yesterday in Arizona. In watching and reading the coverage of this tragedy I have been struck by the flurry of comments from some political commentators that this somehow resulted from the words of people on the other side of the political isle. They say this despite by there own admission that, at least as of this writing, there is not one scintilla of evidence to support such convictions.
This viewpoint got me thinking about how many atheist and other non-believers use a perceived lack of tangible proof of the existence of God as a foundation for their non-belief. I think a lot about how to respond to such non-believers. I am by nature a logical thinker and as an attorney I am trained to seek proof and question everything. So it seems natural to me that my need to continually seek God is satisfied, in part, by seeking proof that He exists.
It is currently widely agreed that the universe was created by a "big bang." While I won't delve into the hit-and-miss history of universally held scientific beliefs, I will for the sake of this post accept that the big bang theory is true. Scientific atheist (used as a general term for all who do not believe in the existence of God and do so based on a belief that there is a lack of empirical proof thereof) see the creation of the universe and of mankind as a random act. They base their entire belief system, and often their lives, on this one-in-trillions (or greater) chance that everything fell perfectly in place for the creation of life, the development of humanity and the perfectly supporting universe around us. Yet, I challenge anyone to find another area of science where such a random chance happening is given any credence. In my own profession, if a DNA test finds that it is 99.9% likely for a man to be the biological father of a child, science and the law deems him to be the legal father. In criminal court, DNA is used to tie and exclude suspects to crimes.
If human DNA can identify people in terms of one-in-billions and the make-up of homo sapiens is but an infinitesimal part of the whole of creation, it begs the question of how scientific atheists rationalize their views on creation. How can one accept that the universe as we know it was created by chance, but summarily dismiss that same chance when it comes to DNA (or any other scientific area). Is it not, at a minimum, equally as likely that a mother and father in Wisconsin and a couple in Germany could produce offspring with the exact genetic pattern as it is that the universe was created to perfectly support human life? How is it that the idea of two persons having the same DNA is so remote that it is dismissed by all but maybe the most fringe members of the scientific community, but chance on the much grander scale of creation is seen as perfectly acceptable?
The reasons scientific atheists disregard chance in all but creation vary as greatly as the number of persons who hold this belief. All we can do is pray for the soul of these persons and do out best to show them the Truth.
"If you want to be happy, really really happy, use your talents to serve others." - Eduardo Verastegui