UponTruth is on YouTube - see us at YouTube.com/UponTruth.

In this article, I tell a little about how I came to belief and describe a rational approach to the pursuit of Truth. Note that I also posted a video version of this on YouTube - it can be found at http://youtube.com/watch?v=yVT7RNSPNi4

I wasn’t raised in a Christian home and, except for the rare funeral, I never went to a formal Church service when growing up. In fact, I don’t recall anyone ever sharing their Christian faith with me. But perhaps I wasn’t listening - what interested me was science!I spent my youth fascinated by science and technology. I read a lot of science fiction — I loved Heinlein and Asimov, and was absolutely captivated by the Apollo moon program. I guess you’d have to say that science was my god.In college, I studied for and received a bachelor of science. But after closely examining science’s claims about reality, I became more skeptical.

Science has been successful by looking for answers only through processes that can be seen in operation today. This works well in most cases; but when applied too broadly this commitment to materialism can lead to irrational answers.

If the search for truth starts with the assumption that the visible is all that there is - then important aspects of reality will remain forever hidden. Can naturalistic rules be applied to look at events that occurred before these same rules were in place?

Let me illustrate my point.

No part of science is more colored by science’s materialistic assumptions than the study of origins. But the origin of both the universe and of life present deep challenges for materialistic science.

Regarding the origin of the universe, science believes that space, time, and the physical laws all came into being, in an instant, at the big bang. Since neither the physical laws, nor even time, existed “before” (if one can say before) the big bang - then the universe’s existence cannot be explained using known natural laws. In other words, the trigger for the big bang must have been from outside of the natural - a supernatural event!

Another facet of this problem is presented by the extreme fine-tuning of the universe’s physical laws. Change these only a little, and life as we know it is no longer possible. There are many examples here including the strength of gravity, the rate of expansion of the universe, and the properties of various types of matter such as water - which is an amazing substance if you look at it closely. Alter these only slightly, and we are simply not here. But since the natural laws might logically have been different, it is reasonable to ask for some explanation of what has been described as a “put-up” job.

Richard Dawkins, the outspoken evolutionist and author of “The God Delusion”, has ridiculed what he perceives to be blind faith in Christians. Now I believe in confronting problems directly, and don’t understand why people will bet their lives on a belief they cannot rationally defend. So I listened to a lecture Dawkins gave last October.

At this lecture, Dawkins responded to a question relating to the mystery of the origin of the physical laws of nature, with an idea known as the “multi-verse”.

The multi-verse idea says that we only find ourselves in a universe like ours because, if our physical laws had been any different, then we could not have evolved to witness them! By this way of thinking, since our natural laws are much too finely-tuned to have arisen by chance in just one roll of the dice, then there must be a nearly-infinite number of universes, each containing a very different set of physical laws. Our universe, but only by the very luckiest of chances, got them just right!

Despite having seen some of these alternate universes on Star Trek, I have one serious problem with this theory. There is absolutely no way to verify that these alternate realities actually exist!

Where does such circular reasoning come from? It’s from a deep commitment to materialism. This multi-verse idea attempts to explain the fine-tuning of the laws of nature by appealing to the infinite, the undetectable, and to us, the forever unknowable. I ask, is this belief based upon evidence or upon blind faith?

Another scientific enigma is the origin of the genetic code. Since evolution cannot select an organism’s “beneficial” traits without a mechanism for inheritance, then it cannot explain the origin of the genetic code. For without these assembly instructions, acquired traits could not be preserved or passed on; evolution would have no way to operate. So although evolution may be a viable explanation for how life survives in a changing environment, it cannot explain life’s origin.

The evolutionary-materialist prays that billions and billions of years will provide enough time for chemical processes to create the genetic code and the first cell. But materialism has no explanation for the genetic code. And even the simplest living cell is enormously complex and beyond the creative abilities of our 21st century technology.

When I was younger, observations like these kept me searching for another answer. I looked at many religions and philosophies. But all seemed self-contradictory and counter-intuitive; that is, until I looked closely at Jesus of Nazareth.

Even old Hollywood movies tell enough about Jesus to see the obvious pictures of Him that are painted by the ancient Biblical prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. And there are many other such prophecies.

These are books that were written hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet they perfectly predict His ministry, his death, and His resurrection.

I also read in the New Testament book of John, verse 14:6, where Jesus said:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.”

In spite of a few lingering doubts, these things and others led me to give my life to Jesus Christ when I was 28 years old.

To skeptics of belief in Jesus Christ, I say this.

If the Bible is searched with the preconception that there is nothing beyond what we can see and touch, then Biblical miracles will be seen only as irrational superstition.

But are we really so confident in our understanding of reality that we can completely discount the miraculous? If so, on what basis do we make this judgment?

Richard Dawkins says that Christians have blind faith. Christians have fulfilled prophecy, historical evidence, and changed lives! What do materialist have? A close examination of the evidence will show that Dawkins and other materialists have blind faith - in materialism!

Science is a great tool that can be used productively in the search for truth, but it has its limits.

A real search for the truth should be willing to look at all the evidence, without banning unpopular conclusions as out-of-bounds. Does the evidence point to purposeless materialism or to a Creator? Are you willing to take a serious look at the evidence and let it speak for itself?

I don’t claim to have all of the answers. But I do believe that the truth can be approached rationally. The truth, if it is really the truth, will stand up under whatever honest scrutiny I can subject it to. I say, don’t be afraid to dig deep!