From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
      
   >> Christian Anfinsen (1916–1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and   
   >> winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:   
   >> “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there   
   >> exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and   
   >> knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”   
      
   > I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism   
   > in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind   
   > of God.[1]   
      
   Anfinsen was for most of his life considered himself an orthodox   
   agnostic.  It wasn't until his work on the folding of proteins, which   
   got him the Nobel, that he began his professing of evidence of   
   intelligent design in the process and in 1989 he wrote, an   
   "all-powerful, all-knowing entity" must exist to explain the complexity   
   he observed in the lab.  The quote above was in a book published in   
   1992, "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the   
   Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens".  This was not a gap   
   for him, he realized it was a door that needed information to open that   
   natural processes couldn't deliver.   
      
   > I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't   
   > have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a   
   > God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,   
   > that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of   
   > the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a   
   > 'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from   
   > encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever   
   > with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a   
   > perfectly rational conclusion.   
      
   I kind of disagree with the rational part, but I suppose I am not a very   
   good "believer" in that I am not concerned with convincing people.  I am   
   willing to talk about it, and I am concerned that my loved ones believe   
   things I think are ridiculous, but in TO, for example, I could give to   
   shits what anyone else believes.  It's not my job to convince them of   
   anything.   
      
   > I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various   
   > atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is   
   > something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the   
   > people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are   
   > essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of   
   > intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot   
   > physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me   
   > an exceptional degree of hubris.   
      
   What interests me is the total lack of curiosity in the majority of the   
   population in even considering why the hell all this is here.  They've   
   all mostly been convinced all this has been figured out and God is Dead.   
     That's what they get taught in schools.  Though I do think there is a   
   bit of a spiritual revival going on, and the ID people are having a lot   
   to do with this in positive ways, the vast majority of people still   
   claim to be atheist.   
      
   I also do understand this leaning to disbelief, to be honest.  First,   
   they've been told all their lives that's how it is.  Though they have no   
   problem watching movies or reading books with all kinds of supernatural   
   powers and space aliens of all kinds, thinking there is actually   
   something supernatural in real life is a whole other thing.  It is   
   difficult for me too.  It is such an incredible thing to realize there   
   actually could be something out there that created the universe and it   
   just hasn't been around forever on it's own.  It's difficult to grasp.   
      
   If you are going to think it through on your own, where do you start?   
   That's one of the reasons why I like the book, that it appears only you   
   and I read, "God The Science The Evidence."  They write about 3 things I   
   don't believe science has a suitable answer for.  The Big Bang, the fine   
   tuning, and the Origin of Life.  You and I differ on some things, but   
   most likely agree these three display Intelligent Design and something   
   other than natural causes had to have played a part in them happening.   
   If, like me, you come to the conclusion it did require something else,   
   what then?   
      
   You consider what that intelligent agent would be.  I conclude that God   
   must have aseity as a main quality.  He wouldn't have done this because   
   he needed to.  So you ask yourself why.   
      
   If you can answer that question, you probably move on to consider what   
   the world's population thinks about a supernatural agent.  You wonder if   
   a God would make this for the hell of it and then disappear, or be a   
   part of it.  You look at the different religions and decide if any of   
   them make sense to you.  For me only one did.  Realizing that the three   
   scenarios talked about in the book need another answer than naturalism,   
   I find my religion changes the way I look at everything, and yes even   
   the assumptions made and the conclusions of scientific research.   
      
   All the talk and discussion on origins take an entirely different path   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)