�Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.� ___Max Planck

Man finds himself precariously suspended between two equally impenetrable mysteries.� As he peers outward through his telescope into the vast external realm of space, he only �sees� 5% of what is there.� What lies before him are countless far-flung galaxies and planets suspended in a cosmological �soup� of non-material, invisible dark energy and dark matter that makes up the other 95%.� As he turns his telescope around, turning it into a microscope, and peers inward into the tiniest speck of dust on his table, he is again confronted with unfathomable mysteries as he plunges endlessly downward into the atomic, subatomic and quantum realms where �matter� morphs into minute strings of pure energy�In this sphere, �the very meaning of place, time, and motion grow fuzzy, while the substantiality of matter dissolves into an abstract cloud of mathematical symbolism.� ^[i]� Whether his gaze is directed outward or inward, everything extends to infinity in all directions.

It is astounding that despite the advances of science, we�ve barely begun to understand the basics of our existence and origins since time began.� The great mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal observed back in 1650,

�What is a man in the infinite? Who can comprehend it? But to show him another prodigy equally astonishing, let him examine the most delicate things he knows. Let a mite be given him, with its minute body and parts incomparably more minute, limbs with their joints, veins in the limbs, blood in the veins, humors in the blood, drops in the humors, vapors in the drops. Dividing these last things again, let him exhaust his powers and his conceptions, and let the last object at which he can arrive be now that of our discourse. Perhaps he will think that here is the smallest point in nature. I will let him see therein a new abyss. I will paint for him not only the visible universe, but also everything he is capable of conceiving of nature’s immensity in the womb of this imperceptible atom.�

�Let him see therein an infinity of worlds, each of which has its firmament, its planets, its earth, in the same proportion as in the visible world; in this earth of animals, and ultimately of mites, in which he will find again all that the first had, finding still in these others the same thing without end and without cessation. Let him lose himself in wonders as amazing in their littleness as the others in their vastness. For who will not be astounded at the fact that our body, which a little while ago was imperceptible in the universe, itself imperceptible in the bosom of the whole, is now a colossus, a world, or rather a whole, in respect of the final smallness which we cannot reach? He who regards himself in this light will be afraid of himself, and observing himself suspended in the mass given him by nature between those two abysses of the Infinite and Nothing, of which he is equally removed, will tremble at the sight of these marvels; and I think that, as his curiosity changes into admiration, he will be more disposed to contemplate them in silence than to examine them with presumption.�

�For, in fact, what is man in nature? A nothing in comparison with the infinite, an All in comparison with the nothing, a mean between nothing and everything. Since he is infinitely removed from the two extremes, and his being is no less distant from the nothing from which he was drawn than from the infinite in which he is swallowed up.� ^[ii]

And in more modern times, even the greatest scientific minds admit to only �seeing through a glass darkly� when it comes to where we came from and why we exist.� Max Planck writes,

�Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.�

Are science and religion natural enemies?

Complicating our search for truth is the intellectually costly and largely contrived rivalry between �science,� and �religion.�� Science claims to be all about �the facts,� as it summarily dismisses all things religious as the stuff of myth and superstition.� This of course ignores the clear historical record.� According to the �Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project,

�Despite instances of hostility toward religion and high levels of disbelief in the scientific community, however, science and religion have often operated in tandem rather than at cross-purposes.�

�Indeed, throughout much of ancient and modern human history, religious institutions have actively supported scientific endeavors. For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth. Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God�s creation.�

�Even in the 20th century, some of the greatest scientists, such as Georges Lemaitre (the Catholic priest who first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory) and physicist Max Planck (the founder of the quantum theory of physics), have been people of faith. More recently, geneticist Francis Collins, the founder of the Human Genome Project as well as President Barack Obama�s choice to head the National Institutes of Health, has spoken�publicly about how he believes his evangelical Christian faith and his work in science are compatible.�

�In addition, many scientists, including many who are not personally religious, tend to view science and religion as distinct rather than in conflict, with each attempting to answer different kinds of questions using different methods. Albert Einstein, for instance, once said that �science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.� And the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously referred to this separate but complementary relationship as �non-overlapping magisteria.�� [iii]

In the book, �Science Held Hostage,� author Howard Van Till points out,

�The goal of natural science is simple: to study the physical universe, no more and no less. Non-physical systems are, by definition, excluded. As such, the modern notion of natural science is necessarily wedded to empiricism.� When scientists attempt to draw metaphysical conclusions from physical data, they’ve stepped out of line. Natural science can explain the “what,” but not the “why.” It answers questions about physical properties, physical behavior, and the formative history of the observable universe. That’s all.�

�The non-physical realm, on the other hand, is the object of a different sort of inquiry. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe. Since science uses empirical data–that known by the five senses–something must exist first for science to examine. Questions regarding an immaterial “something” that might have produced the material realm can’t, even in principle, be answered by science.�

�Neither can science answer questions about the governance of the universe, though it’s quite capable of drawing conclusions about its behavior. Even the so-called laws of nature are not truly laws. They don’t compel behavior; they merely describe it. That which is behind this behavior is not natural, but supra-natural, outside the proper domain of science.�

“Questions of origin and governance–important questions both–must be directed toward whatever serves as the source of answers to one’s religious questions,” Van Till says.� Science and religion are not enemies, but partners complimenting each other. Religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go.�

�The fact is, agent causation is an acceptable scientific explanation for things because we understand that in the world of natural cause and effect, there are acting agents that make decisions about things. In fact, when you try to solve a murder, this is precisely what you are trying to determine. Who was the acting agent? Not what are the scientific laws that can account for the body being in this position at this particular time. You are not concerned with that. You are concerned with the guilt and the identity of an individual who made a choice to do an immoral act, a homicide in this case. And so you are trying to determine, even using scientific evidence much of the time, who was the agent who acted.� [iv]

The great mystery of our origins

This brings us to the mind-numbing question about how the universe came about in the first place.� A prominent national periodical summarized the leading theory in layman�s terms:

�The most popular theory of our universe’s origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history�the big bang. This theory was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed, in all directions, as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force.�

�Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time.�

�Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe’s known matter and energy�even space and time themselves�to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy.�

�The theory maintains that, in the instant�a trillion-trillionth of a second�after the big bang, the universe expanded with incomprehensible speed from its pebble-size origin to astronomical scope. Expansion has apparently continued, but much more slowly, over the ensuing billions of years.�

�Scientists can’t be sure exactly how the universe evolved after the big bang. Many believe that as time passed and matter cooled, more diverse kinds of atoms began to form, and they eventually condensed into the stars and galaxies of our present universe.�

�A Belgian priest named Georges Lema�tre first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom. The idea subsequently received major boosts by Edwin Hubble’s observations that galaxies are speeding away from us in all directions, and from the discovery of cosmic microwave radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.�

�The glow of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is found throughout the universe, is thought to be a tangible remnant of leftover light from the big bang. The radiation is akin to that used to transmit TV signals via antennas. But it is the oldest radiation known and may hold many secrets about the universe’s earliest moments.�

�The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven�and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.� ^[v]

A formidable problem indeed.� The implications of the big bang theory are staggering; more on that later.

Dinesh D�Souza writes,

�Scientists projected a moment in which all the mass in the universe was compressed into a point of infinite density.� The entire universe was smaller than a single atom.� Then in a single cosmic explosion�the Big Bang�the universe we now inhabit came into existence.� �The universe was filled with light,� Steven Weinberg writes.� In fact, �it was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe.�� The temperature was about a hundred trillion degrees centigrade.� Then, in a process vividly described by Weinberg in �The First Three Minutes,� the first protons and neutrons began to form into atoms.� Once matter was formed, gravitational forces began to draw it into galaxies and then into stars.� Eventually, heavier elements like oxygen and iron were formed and, over billions of years, gave birth to our solar system and our planet.� ^[vi]

That single seminal event 13.8 billion years ago has so far produced a mind-boggling 10²⁴ stars and 170 billion galaxies that stretch out 47 billion light-years in all directions.� Time, space and the laws of physics were �born� at the same instant as the �Big Bang.�

Emerging out of this expanding milieu our earth was formed some 4.5 billion years ago and against all odds, appears to be the only human life-supporting planet.� This is because the earth appears to have been �designed� to support human life employing an array of exquisitely balanced physical variables that would seem to exist nowhere else in the universe.� As one commentator put it,

�In order for life to exist�in order for the universe to have observers to take notice of it�the gravitational force has to precisely what it is.�� The Big Bang had to occur when it did.� If the basic values and relationships of nature were even slightly different, our universe would not exist, and neither would we.�

Eric Metaxas writes,

�Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life�every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth�s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.�

�Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn�t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?�

�There�s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces�gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the �strong� and �weak� nuclear forces�were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction�by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000�then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.�

Metaxas then boldly introduces another dimension to the subject, with some rather �unscientific� conclusions, �Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all �just happened� defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?�

�Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term �big bang,� said that his atheism was �greatly shaken� at these developments. He later wrote that �a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.��

�Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that �the appearance of design is overwhelming� and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said �the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.��

�The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something�or Someone�beyond itself.� ^[vii]

Max Planck wrote,

�As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.� ^[viii]

One scientific commentator queried,

�In the end when you think about it, our whole world, including ourselves, is just made up of atoms and molecules. Does that mean that we are just probability waves?� ^[ix]

And then we have the deeply unsettling claims of quantum physics.

�The quantum world continues to be a fairyland that defies common sense and where anything can happen. For decades most physicists have used quantum mechanics, but nobody has convincingly shown us where it comes from. Einstein may have gone against the grain of experiment but he was right in feeling a decided sense of unease regarding the reality which the weird quantum universe encapsulates.�� [God does not play dice.�]^[x]

As physicist Daniel M. Greenberger put it,

�Einstein said that if quantum mechanics were correct then the world would be crazy. Einstein was right – the world is crazy.” ^[xi]

Quantum physics is limited to theories and equations which try to explain the most fundamental processes of our world.� Trouble is, when we delve this deeply, we are confronted with counter-intuitive perplexities that humble the most brilliant of thinkers.

�But the equations that are a routine part of this kind of work contain one embarrassing feature. The say, according to the standard interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), that nothing is real unless you look at it, that an electron (say) exists only as a wave of probability, called a wave function, which collapses into reality when it is measured, and promptly dissolves into unreality when you stop looking at it.� ^[xii]

A prominent scientific journal concludes,

�Perhaps our only flaw is in trying to use ordinary common sense to understand what is fundamentally an otherworldly universe that does not lend itself to our frail minds.� Perhaps we should continue to �shut up and calculate�, reap the tremendous agreement with experiment that the theory gives us and just stop bothering about what it all means. What we do know is that physicists and philosophers will keep on searching for the true reality underlying quantum mechanics, whether one exists or not.� ^[xiii]

An atheist�s worst nightmare

Most college students pass through at least one course in philosophy which includes a study of the well-known, Kalam cosmological argument.� That deceptively simple argument has proven to be among the �stickiest wickets� for atheists, materialists, and humanists to defeat.� With the almost universal acceptance of the big bang theory, and its attendant beginning point some 13.8 billion years ago came the �inconvenient problem� of the Kalam Cosmological argument.

William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University, writes:

1. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.

Suppose you were hiking through the forest and came upon a ball lying on the ground. You would naturally wonder how it came to be there. If your hiking buddy said to you, �Forget about it! It just exists!� you would think he was either joking or just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the idea that the ball just exists without any explanation. Now notice than merely increasing the size of the ball until it becomes coextensive with the universe does nothing to either provide, or remove the need for, an explanation of its existence.

So what is the explanation of the existence of the universe (by �the universe� I mean all of space-time reality)? The explanation of the universe can lie only in a transcendent reality beyond it � beyond space and time � the existence of which transcendent reality is metaphysically necessary (otherwise its existence would also need explaining). Now there is only one way I can think of to get a contingent entity like the universe from a necessarily existing cause, and that is if the cause is an agent who can freely choose to create the contingent reality. It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of the contingent universe is a transcendent personal being � which is what everybody means by �God�.

We can summarize this reasoning as follows:

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.

3. The universe is a contingent thing.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.

� which is what everybody means by �God�.

2. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

We have pretty strong evidence that the universe has not existed eternally into the past, but had a beginning a finite time ago. In 2003, the mathematician Arvind Borde, and physicists Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past spacetime boundary (i.e., a beginning). What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds so long as time and causality hold, regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don�t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we can�t yet provide a physical description of the first split-second of the universe; but the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of one�s theory of gravitation. For instance, their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state which may have characterized the early universe cannot have existed eternally into the past, but must itself have had a beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called �multiverse�, composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have had a beginning.

Of course, highly speculative physical scenarios, such as loop quantum gravity models, string models, even closed timelike curves, have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. These models are fraught with problems, but the bottom line is that none of these theories, even if true, succeeds in restoring an eternal past for the universe. Last year, at a conference in Cambridge celebrating the seventieth birthday of Stephen Hawking, Vilenkin delivered a paper entitled �Did the Universe Have a Beginning?�, which surveyed current cosmology with respect to that question. He argued that �none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.� Specifically, Vilenkin closed the door on three models attempting to avert the implication of his theorem: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and an �emergent� universe which exists for eternity as a static seed before expanding. Vilenkin concluded, �All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.�

But then the inevitable question arises: Why did the universe come into being? What brought the universe into existence? There must have been a transcendent cause which brought the universe into being � a cause outside the universe itself.

We can summarize this argument thus far as follows:

1. The universe began to exist.

2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.

3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

By the very nature of the case, that cause of the physical universe must be an immaterial (i.e., non-physical) being. Now there are only two types of things that could possibly fit that description: either an abstract object like a number, or an unembodied mind/consciousness. But abstract objects don�t stand in causal relations to physical things. The number 7, for example, has no effect on anything. Therefore the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind. Thus again we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator.� [xiv]

�Aw Come on.� Really?�

Of course the idea of an invisible intelligence creating everything, including us, is hard to swallow for many people.� But the alternatives can be even more bizarre.� Consider this �theory� as reported by Popular Science Magazine in July 2015 entitled, �Could Life on Earth Originated From Afar?�

�Lithopanspermia. The word is a mouthful but represents one of the most intriguing theories about the origin of life on Earth. Quite literally, it means life began from an extraterrestrial source and brought here by hitching a ride on a rock, more specifically, a meteorite. The idea the entirety of biological life coming from afar makes for fantastic sci-fi fodder but the story proving it as possible fact has been even more entertaining.�

�The initial idea of panspermia began in Ancient Greece but wasn�t fully accepted until the early 1900s when German physicist Svante Arrhenius outlined just how this could happen. In the vastness of space, dormant seeds and spores resistant to the harsh conditions hitch a ride onto particles and travel the universe. Some eventually are drawn in by the gravity of a planet and end up on the surface. If the conditions are right, they can rise from their slumber and start growing, thriving, and evolving. The idea is hard to believe and for over a Century, there was little evidence to prove the postulate.� [xv]

You can say that again.� So we�re supposed to believe that all life started from spores that originated in outer space and resulted in�well�all this including you and me?� By the way, where did these mysterious spores come from?� No matter what the theory, like an endlessly repeating �Groundhog Day,� we end up regressing back to the need for an originating Uncaused cause.

Will the real God please identify himself?

There are a lot of contenders in the great cosmic arena for the honor of being god.� Every culture in history has had a belief in the divine and have created a mythology to explain the world around them.� A drought or illness might befall a village because of some angry god or goddess.� If the gods were happy and suitably appeased, a trip by sea might go well, or an extraordinary crop might result.� In addition to making sense of daily life, the mythology and legends imparted cultural values and stories to succeeding generations.� The major groupings include the gods of:� Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, Norse Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Native American Mythology, Sumerian Mythology, Asian Mythology, and Celtic Mythology.

According to the website, godchecker.com, �Our legendary mythology encyclopedia now includes nearly four thousand weird and wonderful Gods, Supreme Beings, Demons, Spirits and Fabulous Beasts from all over the world.�� There is no end to the list of candidates, because there is no end to man�s insatiable appetite to invent them.� Sometimes we don�t recognize our creations as gods, but if they dominate our lives and function as a perpetual escape from reality, what else should we call them?� Our modern day twin headed god of �comfort and entertainment� is one such example.

But suppose we tried to paint a picture of the kind of god who could conceivably be capable of creating the universe as we know it.� In his book �The Case for a Creator,� Lee Strobel did just that.� He writes,

�As William Lane Craig explained, the evidence of cosmology demonstrates that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused beginning less, timeless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power.� In the area of physics, Collins established that the creator is intelligent and has continued to be involved with his creation after the Big Bang.� The evidence of astronomy, showing the creator was incredibly precise in creating a living habitat for the creatures he designed, logically implies that he has care and concern for them�Not only do biochemistry and the existence of biological information affirm the Creator�s activity after the Big Bang, but they also show he�s incredibly creative.� Evidence for consciousness, as Moreland said, helps establish that the creator is rational, gives us a basis for understanding his omnipresence, and even suggests that life after death is credible.� [xvi]

Strobel concludes that the foregoing factors do not describe the god of deism, pantheism, polytheism, nor �force� or �thing� as with the so-called, Brahman.� Instead, the evidence from creation strongly supports the biblical picture of a personal loving all-powerful God who is vitally invested in getting to know us and who has enthusiastically invited us to get to know him.� As the apostle Paul noted in Romans 1: 19-20, �For since the creation of the world God�s invisible qualities�his eternal power and divine nature�have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [his creation], so that men are without excuse.�

But He is good!

Have you read book series the Chronicles of Narnia?� There is many profound lessons written into these stories by the author C.S. Lewis.

In��The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,� Susan and Lucy ask Mr. and Mrs. Beaver to tell them about Aslan, the lion in the story who is the Christ-figure.

They ask if Aslan is a man, and Mr. Beaver replies:

Aslan a man? Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the woods and the son of the great Emperor-beyond-the Sea. Don�t you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion�the Lion, the great Lion.�

�Ooh!� said Susan. �I�d thought he was a man. Is he quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.�

�That you will, dearie, and make no mistake,� said Mrs. Beaver, �if there�s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they�re either braver than most or else just silly.�

�Then he isn�t safe?� said Lucy.

�Safe?� said Mr. Beaver. �Don�t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about being safe? �Course he isn�t safe. But he�s good. He�s the King, I tell you.� [xvii]

That conversation is loaded. Please get the last line. He�s good, he�s the King, but he isn�t safe.� He wants our all.

The most perplexing mystery of all, mankind

But the greatest mystery, indeed the most perplexing of all assaults our senses as we put down our telescope or microscope.� Looking away from the comparatively �tame� and predictable underlying relationships and mechanisms of our material universe, we are confronted with the apparently ungovernable wilds of our own nature and that of our fellow man.� Nothing, either animal or plant compares in complexity and contradiction.

Smack dab in the middle of this exquisite order, beauty, and precise balance, there is a critical segment of creation that appears to be largely exempt from the governing laws and relative predictability of the rest of the universe.� In fact, its history is measured by its endless wars and maddeningly recurrent self-destructive behavior.� While physical laws govern the rest of the cosmos, mankind stands out as �the crazy aunt in the attic,� who seems to defy all laws and logic.

Here is how scripture describes this enigmatic segment of God�s otherwise orderly universe:

�There�s nobody living right, not even one,

nobody who knows the score, nobody alert for God.

They�ve all taken the wrong turn;

they�ve all wandered down blind alleys.

No one�s living right;

I can�t find a single one.

Their throats are gaping graves,

their tongues slick as mudslides.

Every word they speak is tinged with poison.

They open their mouths and pollute the air.

They race for the honor of sinner-of-the-year,

litter the land with heartbreak and ruin,

Don�t know the first thing about living with others.

They never give God the time of day.� ^[1]

And judging by the exquisite order of the universe it hard to imagine that its creator intended that this portion of his handiwork to be in such disarray from the start.� It would seem, as they say, that there is more to the story that explains what went wrong.� More on that later in the book.

So, why is finding God so hard? Or, is it?

Why doesn�t God just open the sky and make his presence known once and for all?

Scripture tells us that God�s primary motivation toward mankind is love.� But true love must be free to choose between legitimate alternatives–there can be no coercion between lovers.� If God suddenly and without warning broke directly into the worldwide consciousness, it would constitute the single most terrifying event in human history.� Forget about UFOs, or extraterrestrial creatures, this would be the One who spoke the cosmos into being and who has the power to dissolve it all at will.� Could he get us to believe in him and obey him? He surely could, but at the cost of defeating his own purpose, that of drawing people willingly into a love relationship with Himself.� As it turns out, God had a better idea anyway.� To explain, a wonderful story called �The Man and the Birds,� from radio commentator Paul Harvey:

�Now the man to whom I’m going to introduce you was not a scrooge, he was a kind, decent, mostly good man. Generous to his family, upright in his dealings with other men. But he just didn’t believe all that incarnation stuff which the churches proclaim at Christmas Time. It just didn’t make sense and he was too honest to pretend otherwise. He just couldn’t swallow the Jesus Story, about God coming to Earth as a man. “I’m truly sorry to distress you,” he told his wife, “but I’m not going with you to church this Christmas Eve.” He said he’d feel like a hypocrite. That he’d much rather just stay at home, but that he would wait up for them. And so he stayed and they went to the midnight service.�

�Shortly after the family drove away in the car, snow began to fall. He went to the window to watch the flurries getting heavier and heavier and then went back to his fireside chair and began to read his newspaper. Minutes later he was startled by a thudding sound. Then another, and then another. Sort of a thump or a thud. At first he thought someone must be throwing snowballs against his living room window. But when he went to the front door to investigate he found a flock of birds huddled miserably in the snow. They’d been caught in the storm and, in a desperate search for shelter, had tried to fly through his large landscape window.�

�Well, he couldn’t let the poor creatures lie there and freeze, so he remembered the barn where his children stabled their pony. That would provide a warm shelter, if he could direct the birds to it. Quickly he put on a coat, galoshes, tramped through the deepening snow to the barn. He opened the doors wide and turned on a light, but the birds did not come in. He figured food would entice them in. So he hurried back to the house, fetched bread crumbs, sprinkled them on the snow, making a trail to the yellow-lighted wide open doorway of the stable. But to his dismay, the birds ignored the bread crumbs, and continued to flap around helplessly in the snow. He tried catching them. He tried shooing them into the barn by walking around them waving his arms. Instead, they scattered in every direction, except into the warm, lighted barn.�

�And then, he realized, that they were afraid of him. To them, he reasoned, I am a strange and terrifying creature. If only I could think of some way to let them know that they can trust me. That I am not trying to hurt them, but to help them. But how? Because any move he made tended to frighten them, confuse them. They just would not follow. They would not be led or shooed because they feared him. “If only I could be a bird,” he thought to himself, “and mingle with them and speak their language. Then I could tell them not to be afraid. Then I could show them the way to safe, warm … to the safe warm barn. But I would have to be one of them so they could see, and hear and understand.”

�At that moment the church bells began to ring. The sound reached his ears above the sounds of the wind. And he stood there listening to the bells–”Adeste Fidelis”–listening to the bells pealing the glad tidings of Christmas. And he sank to his knees in the snow.�

Scripture tells us that God has invaded human history, and has spoken, appearing in a disarmingly humble form:

^�Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn�t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human!�Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn�t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death�and the worst kind of death at that�a crucifixion.� Because of that obedience, God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth�even those long ago dead and buried�will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that he is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father.� ^[2]

Though only a handful of people listened to this gentle innocent from another dimension, those who did truly �hear� were rewarded with an experience of God so vivid that they would risk their lives to tell others about what they had seen and heard.� In the process, they were to turn the then-known world upside down under the influence of God�s winsome salvation message.

Back from the dead�really.

In the run-up to his execution, Jesus Christ made several remarkable predictions about his death, which he claimed would be followed by his immediate return, �From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.� Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. �Never, Lord!� he said. �This shall never happen to you!� ^[3]

It�s not hard to empathize with Peter�s visceral reaction to such a dire prediction, especially coming from someone he understood to be Israel�s soon-to-be-crowned Messiah; but there Jesus was, completely aware of what was coming and yet not seeing his death as an end, but mysteriously, as a new beginning.

What followed soon afterward even astounded Jesus� followers, forewarned as they were, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke, �While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, �Peace be with you.�� They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.� He said to them, �Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?� Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.�

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, �Do you have anything here to eat?� They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.� He said to them, �This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.�

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, �This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.� ^[4]

Naturally, they were frightened, and almost comically blind to what their own eyes were seeing.� But there he stood, accompanied by hundreds of fellow eye witnesses, back from the dead and giving no indication that he was a ghost or apparition or any such thing.� Of course to the outside world, this whole story appeared to be an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by fools.� But then along came the prominent Jewish religious leader and Christian bounty hunter, Saul of Tarsus, claiming to have seen the very same resurrected Jesus. Saul, now renamed Paul, was later to write about the crucial importance of Christ�s resurrection to the whole Christian message, which was taking the world by storm:

�But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.�

�More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. �And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.� But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.� ^[5]

Believe what you will about the resurrection, but understand there were thousands of early followers going to gruesome deaths attesting to the fact that they had seen the risen Christ with their own eyes.� Ask yourself, would you go to a martyr�s death for something you knew to be a hoax?� Remember, these were ordinary people with a lot to lose and nothing to gain by supporting a falsehood at a time and place when death sentences were handed out like parking tickets.

I Believe in Order to�Understand

Herein lies a conundrum�If you�re like me, your �inner skeptic� keeps demanding more and more �proof� before committing to anything, especially in spiritual matters.� Steve Jernigan addressed this as follows:

�St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said, �I believe in order to understand� (credo ut intelligam) and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury, echoed his statement in similar fashion: �I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.� These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason must be preceded by faith in the proper object.� Not faith in ourselves or science, but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself in His Son Jesus Christ.�

�Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews when he said �By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God�s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.� (Hebrews 11:3 � NIV)� Our understanding of the world is driven to a large degree on how we understand ourselves.� If we believe we are the accidental result of a blind and uncaring natural process, then we will view the world through those lenses.� If, on the other hand, we believe that we were purposefully created by a Greater Power, then the lenses we look through become significantly different as does our view of the world.�

�As Christians, we believe this Greater Power is the God of the Bible who created us in His own image.� We also believe that we can come to understand both ourselves and Him through His revelation of Himself in His Son.� In Jesus, the transcendent God intersected with humanity in a way that gives us an understanding of who God is and how we were made to be.� In other words, in Jesus we see both God and man and by believing, we are given the ability to understand as much as our finite minds and rebellious souls can handle.�

�Not everyone can accept this.� Many modern skeptics see the Christian faith as a fool�s errand.� Oddly enough, while many say they do not believe in God strictly because there is no evidence of His existence, they operate on the same �believe to understand� principle.� They simply place their faith in their own ability to reason instead of in a loving God.� They place their faith in Charles Darwin and we place ours in Jesus Christ.� [xviii]

A final thought–we believe we comprehend our world through science and are convinced that our destiny is to create our own “worlds” in the process.� How little we “see,” how arrogant our self-sufficient visions.� At best, we are “seeing through a glass darkly,” with eyes we received from Another, superintended by a brain we barely understand, in front of “a glass” that generates more questions than answers every time we peer into it.

�I believe in God like the sun, and by him I see everything else.�

___C. S. Lewis

[1] Romans 3: 10-18 The Message (MSG)

[2] Philippians 2:5-11�The Message (MSG)

[3] Matthew 16:20-22 (New International Version, �2010)

[4] Luke 24: 36-45 (New International Version, �2010)

[5] 1 Corinthians 15: 12-20 (New International Version, �2010)

[i] “Sparking a Love for Science.” WSJ. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2015.

[ii] Blaise Pascal, Pens�es de M. Pascal sur la religion et sur quelques autres sujets (Paris, 1670), XXII, pp169-75.

[iii] “Religion and Science in the United States.” Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. N.p., 04 Nov. 2009. Web. 06 July 2015.

[iv] J., Van Till Howard, Davis A. Young, and Clarence Menninga. <i>Science Held Hostage: What’s Wrong with Creation Science and Evolutionism</i>. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988. Print.

[v] http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/

[vi] D’Souza, Dinesh. “A Universe With A Beginning: God And The Astronomers.” What’s so Great about Christianity. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Pub., 2007. N. pag. Print.

[vii] Eric Metaxas.� Wall Street Journal, Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God, Dec. 25, 2014.

[viii] http://www.todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm

[ix] http://www.unmuseum.org/quantum1.htm

[x] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/11/04/five-other-mysteries-that-should-keep-physicists-awake-at-night/

[xi] http://www.unmuseum.org/quantum1.htm

[xii] http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm

[xiii] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/11/04/five-other-mysteries-that-should-keep-physicists-awake-at-night/

[xiv] “Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith.” ReasonableFaith.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 July 2015.

[xv] “More Evidence Life Could Have Come From Beyond.” Popular Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 July 2015.

[xvi] Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. Print.

[xvii] “Jesus Isn’t Safe- a Lesson from the Chronicles of Narnia.” Restoration Church: Yakima, WA. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 July 2015.

[xviii] “I Believe in Order to Understand.” Carpe Diem Coram Deo. N.p., 19 May 2009. Web. 02 July 2015.