A Chat With Mr. Enlightenment

I’ve been off here and there on the internet, as I’m wont to do. Lately I ran across a little mess that I had to poke my nose into. I ended up getting into a discussion with a certain atheist (I almost hesitate to call him that: not that he isn’t an atheist, but that his behavior is so regrettable that I don’t want to insult the many articulate, thoughtful, and reasonable atheists I know by putting him and them in the same category).  To make a long story short the discussion came down to me asking him for evidence that naturalism is true. He responded with something along the lines of “300 years of scientific progress.” I kindly asked him to explain what he meant by that, and what exactly scientific progress had to do with philosophical naturalism, and he merely rattled off as many scientific fields as he could think of. “Biology, geology, chemistry, physics” etc. When I asked him, again, for a specific argument he merely replied with “e=mc2”.

I never did get a straight answer out of him, but it reminded me of a passage from C.S. Lewis’s first published novel The Pilgrim’s Regress. The book is purely allegorical, following after the example of The Pilgrim’s Progress by describing the journey of a man named John from his home in the land of Puritania to the wild lands of various human philosophies, customs, and fads before finally returning home again. The particular passage I’m thinking of came soon after John left Puritania when he was picked up by a nice old fat man on a cart by the name of Mr. Enlightenment. John left Puritania in search of a beautiful island that he experienced visions of back home. All his life he’s been taught about the Landlord (who represents God) by Stewards (who are essentially pastors and priests). Mr. Enlightenment soon strikes up a conversation with John.

“‘And where might you come from, my fine lad?’ said Mr. Enlightenment

‘From Puritania, sir,’ said John.

‘A good place to leave, eh?’

‘I am so glad you think that,’ cried John. ‘I was afraid—‘

‘I hope I am a man of the world,’ said Mr. Enlightenment. ‘Any young fellow who is anxious to better himself may depend on finding sympathy and support in me. Puritania! Why, I suppose you have been brought up to be afraid of the Landlord.’

‘Well, I must admit I sometimes do feel rather nervous.’

‘You may make your mind easy, my boy. There is no such person.’

‘There is no Landlord?’

‘There is absolutely no such thing–I might even say no such entity–in existence. There never has been and never will be.’

‘And this is absolutely certain?’ cried John; for a great hope was rising in his heart.

‘Absolutely certain. Look at me, young man. I ask you–do I look as if I was easily taken in?’

‘Oh, no,’ said John hastily. ‘I was just wondering, though. I mean–how did they all come to think there was such a person?’

‘The Landlord is an invention of those Stewards. All made up to keep the rest of us under their thumb: and of course the Stewards are hand in glove with the police. They are a shrewd lot, those Stewards. They know which side their bread is buttered on, all right. Clever fellows. Damn me, I can’t help admiring them.’

‘But do you mean that the Stewards don’t believe it themselves?’

‘I dare say they do. It is just the sort of cock and bull story they would believe. They are simple old souls most of them–just like children. They have no knowledge of modern science and they would believe anything they were told.’

 John was silent for a few minutes. Then he began again:

‘But how do you know there is no Landlord?’

‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder!’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.

‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.

‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.

‘I didn’t quite understand,’ said John.”

Mr. Enlightenment’s “answer” to John’s question was something so ridiculous I’d never imagined I’d find an actual human being making it. Rattling off a series of unrelated scientific achievements tells us nothing about the existence of God, or the veracity of philosophical naturalism. Yet here I found it thrown at me in an actual discussion.

As I’ve said before, science and Christianity (theism in general, actually) get along perfectly well philosophically. I will never understand why science is used as an argument against it. It brings to my mind Mr. Enlightenment’s closing words to John on the subject:

“When you have had a scientific training you will find that you can be quite certain about all sorts of things which now seem to you only probable.”

Advertisements

About Mark Hamilton

I am, in no particular order, a nerd, an aspiring writer, a Christian, an aspiring filmmaker, an avid reader, a male, a YEC, a GM, and a twenty something. I like learning how things are made, finding out how to do things from scratch, and I you can find more of my writing at thepagenebula.wordpress.com

Posted on June 19, 2013, in Christianity, Science! and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.

  1. ”I will never understand why science is used as an argument against it. (christianity and religion)”

    Smile….er…the resurrection? LOL…

    • Hey Ark, thanks for commenting. Before we go any further, make sure you’re up to date on my commenting guidelines. They’re on the About page. I only mention it because I know you have a fiery personality and can get a smidge combative on occasion, and I want you to know that my blog has a lower tolerance for that than many you may be used to.

      That being said, do you have an actual argument? Unexplained smug remarks don’t actually advance the conversation.

      I think what you’re trying to say is that our scientific advances make the resurrection seem impossible. Perhaps the argument behind it is “It may have been alright to believe in something like the resurrection two thousand years ago, but scientific progress has shown us that it is impossible for a dead body to come back to life.” If that is your argument, I’ll have to say that it misses the point. Do you think that people in Jesus’s time thought that dead people coming back to life was normal? They knew just as well as we do that dead men do not come back to life. That’s why the resurrection, if it occurred, must be categorized as a miracle. No one is trying to claim that Jesus came back to life on his own, by accident, without the intervention of a supernatural force.

      A further argument might be that “Science has shown us that the supernatural does not exist.” To which I must say, “Which study has been performed that disproves the possible existence of the supernatural?” More specifically, how could science ever “prove” the non-existence of the supernatural? It’s not a scientific question. As I’ve written about before, science and Christianity work extremely well together. What doesn’t work is assuming that because science can only study the material, the material is all that exists.

  2. Actually, ancient history has quite a few occurrences of resurrection. I am sure I do not have to provide a list?

    However, if you feel strongly enough about it would you like to show me irrefutable evidence of the resurrection of Yashu’a?

    • I would agree that history if full of stories of resurrection. You may notice a common theme among them: none of them involved people saying, after the resurrection “Eh, no big deal. People come back to life all the time. It’s just a natural thing.”

      People then knew just as well as we do now that people do not come back from the dead on their own. Science has only confirmed this fact. So I don’t see how implying that science disproves the resurrection is cogent. We’ve always known dead man do not normally come back to life. That’s why the resurrection, if it occurred, was an example of a supernatural occurrence: a miracle, in other words.

      And no, I can’t give you irrefutable evidence of the resurrection of Yashu’a, no more than I can give you irrefutable evidence of the death of Winston Churchill. History never provides irrefutable evidence. It won’t until someone invents a time machine and we can take a look for ourselves. 🙂

  3. Well, we have eyewitness testimony concerning Churchill, whereas we have a dubious second hand (at least) ‘account’ written decades after the alleged incident . Four accounts in fact, though it is difficult to ascertain who copied from whom? And of course, the oldest original Manuscripts of ‘Mark’ contain no resurrection and the consensus among real live proper biblical experts – rather than those with any sort of vested interest..like christian scholars – is that the longer ending was a christian interpolation….naughty of them don’t you think?
    So one is left with the darned frustrating problem of why they added the resurrection narrative on?

    It makes a lot of sense if one considers how christianity received a kick in the bum thanks to Constantine, of course, but infuses the rest of without any feelings of confidence regarding the genuine motives of christians in general.

  4. Yes, we do have eyewitness testimony concerning Churchill. We also have eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus. Calling the gospels “dubious second hand (at least)” accounts shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about them in general. Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus and knew him personally.

    It’s interesting how you immediately discount what any scholar has to say about the gospels simply because they’re Christian. I could just as easily say that “the real live proper biblical experts” are the Christians because atheist scholars have a vested interest in preserving their atheism ;-). Or we could both be adults and say that historians come from a wide variety of backgrounds, but most are committed to doing good, honest work as free from bias as they can.

    However, if you’re seriously going to try and make the accusation that early Christians didn’t believe in the ressurection and the idea in general was “tacked on later” you’re going to have a tough hill to climb. Paul’s letters speak explicitly about the resurrection, and reference early Christian creeds that go farther back. Biblical scholars (regardless of ideology) agree that Paul’s letters predate the gospels, and most of the gospels can be dated to merely a few decades after Jesus’s death. The resurrection has been a part of Christianity as far back as we can find. What’s more, as Professor Michael Grant (who as far as I could find is NOT a Christian) puts plainly, “The historian cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb … if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.” A fact that the gospel of Mark does record.

    So, lets take a look. We know that Christians were proclaiming a resurrected Jesus before Mark was written, thanks to Paul’s letters and the creed he claims to have received from those who were Christians before his conversion. Mark records an empty tomb, but doesn’t mention any resurrection appearances. The other three gospels, written only a few decades after Christ’s death, do record resurrection appearances. Looking at the evidence, I have to say again that if you want to argue that the resurrection story was added later you’ve got a tough job ahead of you.

    Of course now we’re straying from the original topic. So tell me, again, how is science an objection to the resurrection?

  5. I am running a post about ”Burden of Proof”, if you fell like contributing.?

    http://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-burden-of-proof-why-the-fight/

  6. ”Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus and knew him personally.” False. Unless yo can show irrefutable evidence.

    ”Or we could both be adults and say that historians come from a wide variety of backgrounds, but most are committed to doing good, honest work as free from bias as they can.”
    As an adult then , you should be prepared to acknowledge that no christian biblical scholar is likely to offer any dissent in the topic of biblical exegesis where it pertains to the divinity of Yashu’a.
    Secular scholars have no truck with this line of thought whatsoever, so why would it be considered unfair for me to consider the views of a Christian scholar would be obviously be biased?

    The dissent regarding Paul’s version of the resurrection is well noted, as I am sure you are aware.
    If secular biblical scholars felt there was no case, and it was obvious Paul understood a physical resurrection, it would have been a non issue from the start, so let’s not get too silly, all right? I have no desire to enter debate over semantics.

    “The historian cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb … if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.” A fact that the gospel of Mark does record.”

    From a literary perspective, no one that I am aware has ever denied the empty tomb. This means nothing except the tomb in the narrative is found to be empty.
    Far more erudite and qualified scholars have proposed a myriad of solutions to this little ditty, and none have included the resurrection.

    ”So, lets take a look. We know that Christians were proclaiming a resurrected Jesus before Mark was written, thanks to Paul’s letters…”
    Really? You have not proved your case here as mentioned above.

    ”The other three gospels, written only a few decades after Christ’s death, do record resurrection appearances. ”

    And this proves what , exactly? That someone realised they needed a flesh and blood god so there were a few editorial amendments. Abracadabra and Bob’s your Uncle
    Next…..

    ”Of course now we’re straying from the original topic. So tell me, again, how is science an objection to the resurrection?”

    I won’t deign to answer this as you are being facetious. If you have a scientific model to demonstrate this claim, please produce it.

    • “If you have a scientific model to demonstrate this claim, please produce it.”

      Actually, I believe that’s my line. 🙂

      I’m sorry that you find yourself unable to believe that any Christian could approach the subject in a professionally unbiased matter. Still, I don’t see how you can be consistent in rejecting Christian scholars opinions outright yet still accepting atheist scholar’s opinions without question. If bias is that big of a problem then their bias against ever concluding the existence of the resurrection must be taken into account as well.

      Quite frankly I find the whole argument “No Christian scholar is qualified to have opinions of the historicity of the resurrection” to be a fairly circular one. Either the resurrection happened or it didn’t. That’s the question we’re faced with: did it happen? Now if it didn’t happen, all well and good. But if it did happen then the evidence would lead some scholars to come to the conclusion that it did happen. And if that was the case, those scholars would be very likely to become Christians based on that conclusion. Then, by your definition, their professional opinions would become null and void. Your standards are very much “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

      More importantly you’re argument is just wrong. “Far more erudite and qualified scholars have proposed a myriad of solutions to this little ditty, and none have included the resurrection.” Seriously? No scholars? No scholars whatsoever have proposed the possibility of the resurrection being an explanation for the empty tomb?

      I guess you’ll have to tell Dr. E. P. Sanders, who has said “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” He may not claim to know, but he’s certainly consider an actual resurrection as one possible explanation.

      What I think is more likely is that any scholar who would propose the resurrection as a possibility would be immediately rejected by you as a “fake scholar.” Which means that, no matter what the actual evidence is, you’ll always be right. Which is fine, if all you want to do is win arguments from your own point of view. But if you want to know what actually happened you’ll have to be open to considering the evidence of those whose ideas differ from yours.

      I am aware of the idea that Paul may have been preaching a spiritual instead of a physical resurrection of Jesus. I’m also aware that there are many scholars who come to a different conclusion based on the text, and I lean toward their understanding of Paul. However, for the sake of this argument, I have to say “So what if he was?” Either way Paul is preaching about a miraculous event; either way he is confirming that the tomb was found empty, and that Jesus appeared to many afterwards. Whether the resurrection was purely spiritual or physical is relevant for certain theological issues, but it’s irrelevant as to proving the divinity of Christ. Unless you’d like to claim that people “spiritually” resurrecting is a normal and natural thing that happens all the time?

      I’d like to quote Paul a bit, if you don’t mind.

      “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

      Now tell me how it makes any serious difference whatsoever if Paul is talking about a purely spiritual resurrection or a physical one? Either way, his letters show that early Christians preached a resurrected Jesus, and that principle was a central part of their faith.

      • Now tell me how it makes any serious difference whatsoever if Paul is talking about a purely spiritual resurrection or a physical one? Either way, his letters show that early Christians preached a resurrected Jesus, and that principle was a central part of their faith.

        A spiritual resurrection could merely be considered an hallucinogenic experience. No probs with this.
        People have them all the time.

        And a visitation from a ghost is not being resurrected from the dead at all. But that is a conversation for another day.

        And if you are saying that Christianity is equally at home with a ghost story instead of a physical appearance then you must plead your case to the Pope, the ArchBishop of Canterbury, Desmond Tutu and every other christian leader, including all your dingbat fundamentalists.
        If you can sell this to Lane Craig, Licona and Habermas, maybe even I’ll go to church on Sunday!
        RFLMAO. You are hilarious. in fact I may even do a post of this.

        I wish you all the very best of luck on this mission.

  7. I forgot to add, there are Elvis fans who claim they have seen his ghost, so what are we to make of this? Does this lend credence to any god like claims?

    • Now you’re being dismissive. I never said Jesus became a ghost. A spiritual resurrection would have been much more than that, and Paul is certainly not writing about a ghost in his letters.

      What’s more I am aware that the vast majority of Christians believe in a physical resurrection. I do too. The question I posed to you was why it would matter to the question at hand (“Did the resurrection occur?” if it was a spiritual or physical resurrection?

      We’ve had stories of ghosts for thousands of years. The early Christian creeds, and the writings of Paul, are obviously referring to something different. Something greater. The people of Paul’s time period were well acquainted with the idea of ghosts. If Jesus appeared as a ghost they would not have claimed he had resurrected. The resurrection (whether spiritual or physical) that Paul writes about is something new: something beyond the idea of “ghost.” If ghosts exist than any man can become a ghost by dying. Yet the early Christians claimed that Jesus’s resurrection was proof of his divinity. Therefore, even if the resurrection was spiritual it was something far different than a ghost visitation.

      So tell me again, how exactly have you come to the conclusion that the idea of the resurrection wasn’t a part of the earliest Christian belief system?

      Also, I’ll give you one warning: dismissive and mocking laughter has no place on my blog. If you have an argument to make, make it with civility. Any more comments including derisive “LOL”s or “ROFL”s or mocking statements instead of actual discussion will be nuked.

      • ”So tell me again, how exactly have you come to the conclusion that the idea of the resurrection wasn’t a part of the earliest Christian belief system?”

        I have NEVER said the resurrection was not part of early christian doctrine/belief.
        I don’t believe in the resurrection, but that’s beside the point.

        The simple fact that Paul’s account does NOT state a physical resurrection, and it is a stretch to actually make it so.
        Christians like to interpret it as such, but then they interpret many things to fit their doctrine.

        The fact that the physical resurrection doctrine is not universal and secular biblical scholars have no truck with it confirms my point of view.

        A vision on a road is not evidence;

  8. “I have NEVER said the resurrection was not part of early christian doctrine/belief.”

    That’s interesting, I seem to recall differently. Like right here, where you state that all “real live proper biblical experts” believe that the resurrection story was added on to Mark later, and then implied that the resurrection story was a later creation and, thus, not believed by the earliest Christians.

    “Manuscripts of ‘Mark’ contain no resurrection and the consensus among real live proper biblical experts – rather than those with any sort of vested interest..like christian scholars – is that the longer ending was a christian interpolation….naughty of them don’t you think?
    So one is left with the darned frustrating problem of why they added the resurrection narrative on?”

    Forgive me for misunderstanding you then. Apparently you meant to say that the resurrection story has been a part of Christian doctrine since the beginning, and that Mark’s omission of it means nothing, and that the longer ending being added later was simply Christians clarifying that Mark did believe and testify to the resurrection.

    “The simple fact that Paul’s account does NOT state a physical resurrection, and it is a stretch to actually make it so.”

    You certainly know a lot about theology for someone who says he doesn’t believe a word of it. I suppose I’ll just have to take your word against the word of almost two thousand years of theologians and biblical scholars, scholars who had a vested interest in trying to understand the true meaning of the text. But, again, even if Paul doesn’t state a physical resurrection that has no effect on the fact that early Christians believed that Jesus was resurrected, and that this resurrection was something special and new.

    “The fact that the physical resurrection doctrine is not universal and secular biblical scholars have no truck with it confirms my point of view.”

    So your argument is that all scholars who do not believe in the resurrection (ie, secular scholars: if they believed in it, they’d be Christian scholars after all) do not believe in the resurrection, and thus the resurrection could not have occurred? I might as well argue that all scholars who believe in the resurrection believe in the resurrection, and thus it must have happened. It would make an equal amount of sense.

    But, again, I think all this misses the point of this post and of your original comment that started this discussion. You claimed that science provides some argument against the resurrection. You’ve yet to provide said argument. Do you actually have one, or will you keep changing the subject?

  9. Let me try to clarify: Paul preached a risen christ. I prefer to go with the belief that early christians understood this to be non physical. There is ample documentation to support this.

    Paul makes no mention of the empty tomb, which suggests a later tradition.
    Mark’s gospel was edited to reflect this tradition and the other gospels followed suit.
    I apologise for the confusion. Sometimes I get lost in the labyrinth of christian semantics.
    Your paragraph below illustrates this point perfectly.

    ”So your argument is that all scholars who do not believe in the resurrection (ie, secular scholars: if they believed in it, they’d be Christian scholars after all) do not believe in the resurrection, and thus the resurrection could not have occurred?”

    No secular scholar believes in the physical resurrection of Yashu’a.

    It defies all natural laws. If you can provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary then I am willing to listen to your argument.

    For the record, William Lane Craig is considered one of the better exponents of this argument and he has yet to convince anyone, secular biblical scholar or genuine historian, that I am aware of.
    If you something unique to offer please, be my guest.

    I apologise for any misunderstanding.

  10. Thanks for the clarification!

    Well all I can really say to that is that I respectfully disagree with you. I don’t think enough time passed between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels for such an addition to be added without causing a serious schism in the believers. I also believe that Paul’s language does point us to the resurrection, whether physical or spiritual (though I favor the physical interpretation, as hundreds of biblical scholars and theologians who have studied Paul’s letters do as well).

    As to your statement that no secular scholar believes in the resurrection, I have to say again that is an example of circular reasoning. If a biblical scholar announced that he did believe in the resurrection then he would be labeled a “Christian” scholar. So naturally by its very definition secular scholars do not believe in the resurrection. So all you’re saying is “Scholars who do not believe in the resurrection do not believe in the resurrection, thus the resurrection didn’t happen.”

    “It defies all natural laws. If you can provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary then I am willing to listen to your argument.”

    Now we’re getting to the point. I agree that the resurrection, if it occurred, would defy all natural laws. That’s why, if it happened, it would be proof of Jesus’s divinity. That’s why the resurrection matters at all. If the resurrection did not break the “natural laws” then it wouldn’t be a matter of much concern. The fact is that people then knew just as well as we do now that dead bodies do not rise again without supernatural help. If the resurrection occurred then it was a miracle, proof that there are supernatural actors in the universe that can affect our physical world.

    I’ve never met any Christian who has tried to claim that the resurrection did not break any natural laws. So I don’t know why Christians should be stymied by the argument that “The resurrection breaks all natural laws.” We know this already. The greater question is whether the supernatural exists, and whether it can affect the natural world.

  11. ”(though I favor the physical interpretation, as hundreds of biblical scholars and theologians who have studied Paul’s letters do as well).”
    This merely satisfies the criteria from a christian point of view. It doesn’t even pass muster for an historian. As a Christian is generally obliged to put faith first,(as I understand it) this rather hamstrings any chance of an honest, objective investigation, for to apply the same criteria as one would to other historical events/ figures the Jesus story would be considered myth and or fiction.
    Without a single contemporary account one is forced to the gospels and the Pauline epistles.

    “Scholars who do not believe in the resurrection do not believe in the resurrection, thus the resurrection didn’t happen.”
    Let me be succinct about this once and for all. The above paragraph about objectivity equally applies here.

    No Biblical scholar, investigator, theologian, who is a Christian is able to be objective about the events surrounding the life and death of the character called Jesus and remain a christian.
    Every account by a Christian is biased and subjective.

    As there is no way to settle the argument regarding the resurrection without tramping over ground that has been stamped on by scholars eminently more adept at this than me, I suggest we leave it.
    No argument you could present would be better that Craig’s and I consider he is a twit of the first order.

    Every christian argument has more holes in it than a swiss cheese, yet even with these glaring anomalies pointed out for centuries none has failed to convince christians en masse (scuse the pun) of the nature of what they believe in. This is largely due to cultural ties and inculcation and the fact that the church is dug in like an “Alabama tick in a dog”

    However, slowly but surely this picture is changing. And stories of deconversions are becoming more and more prevalent. And often,deconvertees share their stories.
    Such as Nate. http://findingtruth.wordpress.com
    Such tales carry far more weight and conviction, than I could ever convey, and when read by those christians who are not sure, they can find answers.Answers that will help them.

    maybe even you will

    Best of luck in your journey to truth.

    • I can see you’re ready for our discussion to come to a close. All I can say is that I’m sorry you’re convinced that Christian historians can’t put their ideology aside and be objective. I’m not sure what argument I could possibly make that would change your mind on that.

      Personally, as a Christian, I put a need to know the truth ahead of any requirement of faith. My beliefs only matter if they are true. If they are not, I want to know. Faith is useful when my emotions attack my beliefs: like when I feel down, or afraid, or angry. But blind faith has no place in the sphere of debate or research. We need to be objective and find the truth. From what few Christian historical scholars I’ve met personally, I can say that I’m not the only Christian who believes this way. What matters most is whether my beliefs are true.

      I’ll confess something to you, Ark. Whenever I see a blog post, article, book, or presentation that claims to refute Christianity my pulse races. I become afraid: what if they really have disproven my faith? What if the beliefs I’ve held for so long are false? Yet whenever I investigate said claims and arguments I find myself relieved and somewhat disappointed. I’ve yet to face an argument that held up to examination. If Christianity is as “full of holes as swiss cheese” then why has no one been able to give me a compelling argument against it?

      Perhaps you are right and someday I will find that my beliefs are unfounded. I hope you do not mind that I wish the same thing for you.

      You’re right that personal testimonies often speak louder than any argument someone like us could create. I’ll look over your link, and I hope you’ll look over the stories I’ve found here, just a couple of the many stories I’ve read and heard of hardened atheists becoming Christians.

      http://atheisttochristian.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/testimony-coming-to-faith-in-jesus-christ/

      http://www.bethinking.org/stories-illustrations/intermediate/from-atheism-to-christianity-a-personal-journey.htm

      Thank you for the well wishes, and I wish you the best on your own journey to truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: