Replies

"Look, I have a doctorate level education, ... the more education I had ... the more clear it became that there is a Creator..."

There is, as I'm sure you are aware, a strong negative correlation with level of education and religiosity. It is exactly for this reason, that anecdotes are not to be trusted.

If we were to accept your "The more I lean the more I believe" anecdote as having any weight as an argument, then a larger sample of educated people would show you to be the exception and not the rule and therefore instead offer an argument against religion and not for it.

Let me qualify: the more I learned about theology and philosophy of science and physics and psychology and neuroscience, etc., together, and worked to integrate them, the more I learned there was a Creator.

Most highly educated people don't think like that, and they don't have the background in theology or philosophy to do it. So, yes, I am an exception rather than the rule. But not because my education led me to religion, but because of the KIND of education I received, which was interdisciplinary and rooted in an integration of faith and reason (12 years of Catholic School, thank you).

Just saw from an earlier post that you are an atheist. Are you an atheist atheist, or an agnostic?

Sorry, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to be an atheist. Either you have no evidence or you have evidence. If there is no evidence, you go with agnosticism. You remain open. If have you evidence there is no God, then let me have it. I'd like to hear. If you can demonstrate that evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will renounce my faith right here right now. Go for it. Otherwise, what gives with the atheism?

I can make an extremely compelling case for a Creator, and one that is completely consistent with the scientific evidence. But I am only willing to engage people who are sincerely interested in listening. I don't have time to play head games. But that means I listen closely and generously too.

For a different perspective, you might also consider doing some reading from an alternative point of view, and if you can debunk it from an atheist or agnostic perspective, then good for you. I'd like to hear your argument, in that case. I like to recommend Stephen M. Barr's "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith," because that book helped me synthesize a lot of ideas I had been working out, and ultimately led me back to a belief in God. It's very clear that, within the realm of physics, understanding God as the First Cause is the most parsimonious and sensible answer, when you consider the alternatives.