Dating the Crucifixion

I have run across a very intriguing lecture by Colin Humphreys in which he attempts to use astronomy to get an actual date for the crucifixion. Dr. Humphreys is a very distinguished materials scientist at Cambridge. His interest in dating events of Jesus' life came from an interaction with his daughter. While reading an "important people of history" book, she noticed that they did not have exact dates for Jesus' birth and death. He explained to her that Jesus was born into poverty and died the death of a criminal, therefore it would not be expected that his birth or death would be recorded in any historical record.

The date of the crucifixion has been a thorn in the side of New Testament scholars and is widely debated. The two most popular years are 33 AD and 30 AD splitting scholars about 50% for each. The reason for the discrepancy is that the Gospel of John differs from his account of the events of Easter week from the other three synoptic Gospels. This apparent contradiction has been the subject of debate and is a stumbling block for achieving a consensus of a single date. There are many interpretations that resolve this apparent contradiction which I will not go into. Let us just acknowledge that there is a contradiction.

Humphreys starts by establishing a set of facts that can be used to generate a series of dates that can be further scrutinized. The first fact is the range of years that we can be sure that the crucifixion took place. We know that Jesus was crucified under the governorship of Pontius Pilate and during the reign of Tiberius which was between 26 and 36 AD. The second fact that is not disputed is that the crucifixion took place on a Friday at the beginning of Passover. The third fact is not so clear because it takes into account the apparent discrepancy between John and the other Gospels. Assuming the two opposing accounts, the crucifixion either took place on Nisan (a Jewish month) 14 or Nisan 15.

Using these facts and modern astronomical software, he then generates a series of possible dates of the crucifixion. I am oversimplifying the process because the Jewish calendar was an observational one (based on the appearance of a new moon). The software was used to determine when a new moon could have been observed (establishing the month), that Nisan 14 or 15 fell on a Friday (establishing the date), and in the range of years established (establishing the year). Once the series of dates were established, the dates were cross referenced to events in the Bible whose chronology has been more soundly established. Once complete, Humphreys is left with two dates in the years 30 and 33 AD. The final elimination can be done by citing John's Gospel which records three different Passovers (including that at the crucifixion) during Jesus' ministry which effectively eliminates the 30 AD date.

This later date also explains the uncharacteristic behavior of Pilate when it comes to sentencing Jesus. Pilate was known for his toughness, yet when it comes to sentencing Jesus he hesitates. This later date may explain his hesitation. His mentor had been recently executed for mistreating the Jews. Pilate took this execution as a grave warning about mistreating the Jews which is why he hesitated to sentence Jesus. He is subsequently forced to carry out the sentence by the angry mob.

Thus, the final conclusion is that Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate on April 3, 33 AD.

Humphrey's then proceeds to examine extra-biblical sources and non-canonical Gospels to corroborate his chosen date. He finds the following passages:

Acts 2 14:21

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

The original passage:

Joel 2:31

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the
great and terrible day of the LORD come.

A New Testament Apocryphal fragment known as the "Report of Pilate" contained the following passage (It should be noted that although much of the Apocryphal cannot be used a as primary historical evidence, Tertullian records that Pilate did in fact write a report of all of the facts of the crucifixion for the Emperor Tiberius. This gives evidence the Apocryphal may be based on an earlier document):

the Sun was darkened; the stars appeared and in all the world people lighted lamps from the sixth hour till evening; the Moon appeared like blood.

Humphreys finds other historically established usages of the phrase "moon appeared like blood" and "moon to blood." In each of the chronologically established accounts, the phrase is used to describe a lunar eclipse. Also in each of these accounts, a lunar eclipse can be found to have occurred using NASA's database. Humphrey's then uses that database to determine if any lunar eclipses have occurred during the years that Pilot was governor that could be seen from Jerusalem. He finds that in for all of the years surveyed there is only a single lunar eclipse that could have been seen from Jerusalem. This eclipse took place on April 3, 33 AD.

The preceding is an admittedly superficial account of the lecture (from memory). Humphreys published his findings in Nature if you are interested in reading a more detailed account of the findings.

Crucifixion Article

The Path Chosen

As most of you know, I am a scientist and have been trained to only accept things that I can prove and observe. My faith has never been a problem for me because I believed that science is really good with the 'how' but not the 'why'. Anyway.....during this doubting time, I came to realize how hard it is to believe in an all powerful, all loving, infinite God of which no solid proof of his/her/its existence can be provided. This was very troubling in that my faith has never been a problem before.


I have always understood why people leave Christianity or have an unfavorable opinion of Christianity. When a group claiming to be the only "true" Christians carry around signs that say "Thank God for Katrina" or "God hates fags", it is no surprise that Christianity's public image is taking a beating. Also, when you have been raised in a household where you hear more about God punishing the wicked as opposed to God loving all sinners.....it is no wonder people leave their faith behind them. Sorry to get sidetracked.


As I was saying, it is hard to believe in God, especially without proof. But then I had another thought. Let us take the opposite approach and start at the very basic principle. Some people like to start with life, the cosmos, etc.....I will start with existence itself. Existence (IMHO) is the first miracle. Why should anything exist? I would speculate that it is almost infinitely more probable that nothing should exist rather than something. That being said...there is no way to measure the probability of existence although it is what we most take for granted.


Since we exist...we will move onto the next event which was the formation of the universe. There are several aspects of the formation of the universe that almost defy explanation. Several factors in the formation of the universe needed to be nearly perfect for matter to even exist (plan to cover this in much more detail later). A life friendly universe is just an added benefit and could easily be refuted because we don't know under what conditions life can form....but we do know that matter is necessary. Particles and antiparticles have to have asymmetric populations for matter to exist. Why this asymmetry? Expand too fast the universe blows up....Expand to slow and you get collapse. Change Carbon resonance frequency for formation....no carbon (no life, Silicon has been shown not to be an adequate substitute). I could go on and on....which I will do in a later post.


We can then move to life. If we were constantly bombarded by cosmic radiation or if the constants changed a little bit and the sun burned 10x as fast, this may prove to be inhospitable to life as we know it. Sure there are unicellular organisms that can sustain radiation and inhospitable conditions, but could life evolve to the level of complexity that we see. Also, if constants were muddled with and stars either didn't form or burned out 10x as fast....could life evolve in such a short period of time? I know that this is more subjective because life could arise....but maybe just not humans. However, you do need a decent amount of time for evolution to self aware organisms to arise.


But since we are here, we know that we live on a tiny blue marble that is in a not so special part of the galaxy in a seemingly not so special solar system. But it turns out our location does matter and the solar system does impart special circumstances for our existence. Without Jupiter, it is likely that Earth would have been bombarded with asteroids and comets for a lot longer and more often than it has been. If Earth would have been closer or farther from the sun, changes in temperature would be dramatic. If Earth's orbit would not be as constant as it is, temperature fluctuations throughout the year would also be drastic. If the Moon did not exist, the Earth's tilt would not be stable which would result in drastic climate changes. Not to mention the atmosphere, protection of magnetic field, etc. But nevertheless, this happened.


Let us move on to life. Life appeared from inert chemicals in a relatively short amount of time. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago. For the first 500 million years, the Earth's surface was molten and in no condition to support any type of life. The first signs of life can be found 3.9 million years ago. That leaves about 100 million years for life to develop in such a way to leave behind evidence. There are several aspects of this that are remarkable to say the least. A couple that come to mind....conversion from inanimate organic matter to self-organized, self-replicating life (why is this necessary or even possible?), switch from RNA to DNA, switch from prokaryotic to eukaryotic, switch from single to multi celled (why were bacteria not happy with being unicellular?), switch from anaerobic to aerobic, Cambrian explosion (during which all observed body types appear in a geologic blink of an eye.), etc.


If this process wasn't amazing enough. We seem to be the outcome. We started with simple organic chemicals and ended up with an inexplicably complex biological machine (people) which by comparison pales in complexity with the brain. The brain is by far the most complex system presently known in the entire universe. Another way to look at it is, we start with inanimate matter and end with a self-aware being with thoughts, feelings, and the intellectual capacity to understand the very physical world in which it lives in. The same chemicals in the rocks, dirt, stars, comets, etc have some how become able to enquire about their own existence.


When I though about it this way, it didn't seem so cut and dry anymore. Realizing all of the things that have to happen to arrive at this point....it no longer seemed so far fetched that there is a supreme intelligence or consciousness.

There are some people that are skeptical of all of this and think that the fact that we are here renders all of the improbabilities meaningless (once again this will be covered in more detail later) since it did happen. The question that I have always had is:

How many times do we need to win the cosmic / life lottery before we start to suspect that it has somehow been rigged?

Theism

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more deities. For the sake of simplicity, I will assume theism refers to monotheism and the nature of the divine being is a personal one. The Abrahamic religions account for more than half of the worlds populations consist of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Many more learned and articulate people have written about the specifics of these three religions. For brevity, I will concentrate on other less technical aspects of theism although I must confess that I don't really know what to address and how to address it. I don't mean to pick on Christianity but this is what I know....so it is the easiest for me to draw example from (good and bad).

One problem of theism, in my humble opinion, is a public image one. Most theistic people are often portrayed in an unflattering light in the news and mass media. There is always a fundamentalist Christian picketing the funeral of a dead soldier, protests in which signs are held up that say "Thank God for Hurricane Katrina", or Islamic individuals being portrayed as terrorists. Along with books and articles being published like the God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation.....no wonder there are some negative feelings towards theistic individuals.

However, theistic people don't necessarily do anything to help these public images. Blaming the media can only account for so much. The sad fact remains is that there are Fundamentalist Christians that picket funerals and protest signs with "God hates _____ "(Insert social group of your choice). Fundamentalist Islamic people do contribute significantly to terrorist activities. Televangelists conning older people out of their life savings by telling them that God will view their financial sacrifice as a commitment to follow him. Religion will and always has been hijacked in order to serve peoples selfish needs for wealth, power, and greed.

Another word that is always thrown around when it comes to theistic people is hypocrisy. Some Christians are quick to point out faults in others while ignoring their own faults. They seem to forget that the Bible specifically addresses this type of behavior.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

However, this label of hypocrisy is sometimes unwarranted. Just because someone is a Christian does not mean that they are not without faults. Christians strive to be more like Jesus and habitually fail. Some point at this bad behavior and use if to mock or condemn Christians as if being a Christian is supposed to magically make you perfect. In the Christian world view, only Jesus is perfect. The best that we can do is to try and be as Christ-like as possible although the fact remains this is impossible. Hence the slogan...What Would Jesus Do? Call me crazy, but I really doubt Jesus would be picketing funerals with signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Yet another problem associated with theism is that it is perceived to be anti-scientific. Never mind that some of the greatest scientists in history were very religious and were looking for ways to prove God's greatness. At present there exists a view point that any serious scientist could not possibly be a theist or even a deist. This trend is also catching on with the public. In my search through the internet, many people renounced their religious views in favor of believing in science. This is largely the work of the "new atheists" and their claims that scientific thought inevitably leads to atheism. Stephen Jay Gould, as self professed agnostic, had this to say which contradicts this modern misconception:

"To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."

This is my final post for the present concerning the "options for beliefs." By no means is this an exhaustive list, but the majority of beliefs could fit into one of these four categories. I will now be moving on to more interesting topics that deal with some of these belief systems.

Deism

Deism is a religious philosophy that defines God based on reason and personal experience. Typically, Deists reject the supernatural and view God as a creator / intelligence who does not interfere with his/her creation. They also feel that the greatest gift that God has bestowed upon humanity is reason not religion. There have been several famous deists including: Albert Einstein (sort of), James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and most recently Anthony Flew (until recently lifelong atheist philosopher)

My view of Deism is that it is the most "science friendly" theistic belief system. This is because it does not posit any miraculous Earthly interactions with the exception of the initial creation event itself. Also, it is very broad in that anyone that believes in an ultimate power / intelligence can claim to be a Deist.

In my opinion, the fact that it is not very organized can be both a virtue and a vice. No organization leads to less people hijacking Deism for their own personal agenda as we see with other more organized religions (you won't find any Deist televangelists). Also, since it is not exclusive there are no attempts at conversion or retention. Also, no organization leads to Deism being a more personal philosophy than an belief system. Some problems with Deism being not organized is that it has a tendency to die out since there is nothing to "sustain" it. Also, there is no doctrine to follow. Some Deists believe in an afterlife and some do not. Some think that the initial creator God will punish wrong doing and some do not. This may be appealing to some but if it is this subjective and everything is based on your personal opinion...why the need for a label?

There are other appealing things that Deism can offer those looking for a belief system. Several classical problems with other more traditional religions do not apply to Deism in general. The problem of evil (which I plan to cover in a later post) does not play a role in Deism since God either does not have the ability or chooses not to interfere with his creation. The argument of the exclusivity of organized religions also does not apply since Deism is more a philosophy than an organized belief system.

However, there are also several things about Deism that I feel are lacking. Its relativism strikes me as the first problem, although some may view this as a strength. The opinions on the afterlife is another example. Some Deists believe that there is an afterlife with judgment while others do not. What about objective morals? Do they exist? This leaves a lot of open territory for relativistic thought. I will use an extreme example to illustrate my point. Some Deists may feel that killing kittens is morally wrong while others feel that it is perfectly fine with it. Who is correct? At least with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism moral values are objective and known. I know that some don't like the structure and exclusivity of organized religion but in some instances it is warranted (once again more on this in a later post). Some reasons for believing in a personal creator (we are personal, we create, we love, etc.) are also, in general, not satisfied by Deism. Why are we the way we are? An impersonal God does not really answer this question.

Also, if one is able to make the jump from atheism to deism....traditional theism is not too big of a leap. This is why Deism is sometimes viewed as a sort of stopping point to either traditional theism or atheism depending on the original starting point.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the belief that the answers concerning theological questions are ultimately unknowable. As with atheism, agnosticism generally comes in two different flavors: strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism. Strong agnosticism, which can be likened to weak atheism in some respects, posits that there is no way to know whether God exists. Weak agnosticism asserts that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknown but is not necessarily unknowable.

I believe that agnosticism does have its merits. We are all agnostic at some level....at least people who are honest with themselves. I know that there are both theists and atheists out there that would make claims to the contrary; but I would counter with the argument that since they are still alive, how could they know with 100% certainty? They may believe that have this knowledge but believing and knowing are two different things. This also applies to the very nature of God as well. God may very well exist but his / her nature could be a lot different than what people think it is. The point is that at some basic levels, we are all at least in some way agnostic. However that being said, just because you cannot know with 100% certainty may not have any impact on what you believe.

However, agnosticism is not without its own set of faults in my opinion. I tend to think of it as an easy way out. You don't know the answer...assume you can never know, so why even waste the effort. I also believe a person's personality also shapes what type of agnostic they are. Some agnostics simply are not interested in the question and are pretty apathetic to the whole issue. Others claim to not have any certain answers but are actively searching for answers to these questions. Still others are not certain and think that anyone who searches is wasting their time.

The problem for me comes down to what if you are wrong and there is potential to obtain certain knowledge that seems unobtainable. There are plenty of people in the world that have claimed to found the answers to life's ultimate questions. Some find this answer through science, some through God, some others through some spiritual meditation new age practice. Whatever their method or preference, there seems to be a potential to learn more than is perceived. It may take work and the search will probably not bear fruit in the short term, but what if you discover something about the world and yourself throughout the journey. Isn't that worth the effort?

As usual, there are two different possible outcomes as with anything concerning these matters. If the atheists are correct then nothing is lost. Simply going through life, not concerning yourself with these matters is probably the best thing to do. At least you aren't as angry as some of the theists and atheists. But (and this is a big one) what if the theists are correct? You have now squandered nourishing the very thing that matters. This could have a wide variety of consequences depending on whom (if anyone) has the proper theological perspective.

Atheism

In the first series of posts, I will look at the options that I have come across that I feel are the most obvious choices for what I would consider my beliefs to be. I will not consider all theological or nontheological options…..just the more common ones.

Atheism is the belief or assertion that no Gods or Godlike entities exist. Atheists come in two flavors....strong atheists and weak atheists. Strong atheists are those who proclaim that there are no God or God-like entities. Weak atheists believe that no God(s) exist but fall short of proclaiming it a certain fact. At least these are the definitions presented by Wikipedia. Let me next make a disclaimer in that while I have no issues with atheism itself, I do have some issues with atheists and their behaviors. This is not to say that all atheists fit the descriptions and statements that will follow but a vast majority (especially on the internet) do.

During my search for what my beliefs are, I spent a couple of weeks reading and feeling out atheism. Some topics and people covered in my search were evolution, determinism, free will, indeterminism, Nietzsche, Russel, Freud, etc. Then I moved on to the "new atheists" who include Dawkins, Harris, Carrier, etc. I also read many atheist blogs and watched many atheist videos on youtube. I know that youtube is not a bastion of thought but I found their videos amusing to say the least.

I have to admit...they presented a strong case. Science is achieving great things and does a really good job explaining the natural world. Every time there is a matchup between science and hard-line religious belief....science wins. If everything can be explained by science, is there still room for God? Is God even necessary?

The more and more that I read, the more I realized that there was a common thread among the people who had this particular world view. A quality of many of the "new atheists" was one that I find to be unpalatable. This quality was arrogance. Virtually all of the atheist blogs, books, and videos painted themselves as superior intellects that need to enlighten the moronic simpletons that had religious belief. This struck a nerve. The likes of Dawkins et al are brilliant scientists and had firm intellectual ground to stand on, but what about the rest of the bloggers and youtubers? The more I watched, the more I realized that what they said did not have substance behind it (the Rational Response Squad and the Amazing Atheist in particular). It was nothing more than a tirade against organized religion using insult and vitriol. They were also guilty of the same behavior that they accused religious people of….bigotry and intolerance. Richard Dawkins seemed to be a big hero of theirs and they treated him as such. The term "sheep" was frequently used to describe those with religious belief by the bloggers. I think that this is a fair assessment because some religious people just follow and do not question. The sad reality is that most of them were sheep as well, only to a different shepherd....Dawkins.

The fact of the matter is that arrogance has no place in this debate. One thing that I know with 100% confidence is that none of us know the answer to the ultimate question. To imply that you know that God does not exist is delusional and irrational (to use an atheist term). This claim to know 100% what is or is not true, along with the sense of superior intelligence, really gets under my skin. A constant point on the many atheist blogs was that believers are not very intellectual. From the videos and blogs on the internet, it certainly doesn't seem like atheists are any more intellectual. I guess a common problem for both atheists and theists is that the most ignorant people usually speak the loudest.

A reason that atheists claim that religion is horrible is because of the past behavior of religious people. They point to the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, etc. to show how religious ideas divide society and ultimately lead to immoral behaviors that are carried out in the name of God. They also point out that science, on the other hand, has led to a wealth of knowledge and has enabled us to do many wonderful things.

On the surface, these are very persuasive arguments for the goodness of science and the propensity of religious belief to lead to violence and intolerance. The problem is that you cannot compare the two using only the best behavior of one and the most despicable behavior for the other. Let us first take science. Yes, science has allowed many great things from vaccines to electricity and from electronic communication to improvements in sanitation. There is no question that science has led to great leaps in the quality of living in all aspects of life. The problem is that the "bad" side of science was not mentioned. Science is also responsible for chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear bombs, etc. In fact, science has led to the ultimate achievement......the ability for humanity to completely wipe itself off of the planet.

Let us now look at religion. Yes, several atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. This is a fact that any religious person is not proud of (hopefully). What about atrocities committed by atheists? Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot alone account for an estimated 48 million deaths. The common objection to this fact is that they did not kill in the name of atheism. My reply would be that in order for communism to work, you need to get rid of religion and religious people. Lenin also crucified many priests and nuns in public in order to demonstrate what happens to people with beliefs.

How about the positives done by religious organizations? How many have been helped by the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and the Red Crescent? After Katrina, who were the first ones to give out food, water, and shelter for those in need....the churches (I lived there at the time).

Bottom line is that if you compare the worst of religion, then compare it with the worst of science....Don't cherry pick stats and ignore others to prove a point. The stats don't lie. People have done horrible things for all sorts of reasons. The common denominator for all these horrors of history is humans and their ability to pervert anything in order to justify atrocities.

I think the one thing that bothered me the most was that the bloggers kept referring to science as what they believed in. They were once again parroting back what was told to them by their shepherd. Most of these so-called intellectuals had no clue about what science was. Believing in science was just the cool thing to do or say. Science is not something to believe in. Science is not a religion. Science explains the natural world....nothing more. Since it only reports on natural phenomenon, appealing to scientific inquiry for evidence for God is a useless endeavor. You can, however, claim that all that is important can be verified through science. But because of the subjectivity of what is important, it cannot be used as a valid argument to lead you to atheism through science. Important ideas for you may not be important for someone else.

In conclusion, atheism is an option that is no better or more rational an option than any other. Science, by its very definition, cannot test for evidence for God and therefore cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. Since atheism and theism cannot be tested by science, to claim either position with 100% certainty is irrational. I realize that I have been tough on atheists but only as a rebuttal for some of their equally tough stances against religion (It also may have something to do with that I really don't like it when people think that they are superior to anyone else). Atheism in itself is not the problem; much like religion itself is not the problem. The problem, it is sad that it always comes down to this, is people.

The Agnostic Christian

For this first post, I would like to give a little background about what inspired the creation of this blog and what I hope to accomplish with it. I will first start off with a little background about myself and the situation that led me to start my journey. I have been a Catholic for a little under 30 years. There have been times when I was more a philosophical Catholic in that I still believed in all of the principles of the Catholic Church, I just did not attend mass. My faith has never been an issue for me. I am a trained scientist, yet I have always believed that science and religion were the yin and yang of the universe. There needs to be a balance between the two but they both can exist and support one another.

This all changed when a routine trip to the dentist turned into a nightmare. Apparently the dentist found a troubling spot and thought that I should have a biopsy just to be safe. The hygienist told me that these things were normal and that she estimated that there was only a 10-20% chance that there was a serious problem. Normally this would not have had such an impact but in light of my becoming a new father, I freaked out. Basically she was telling me that there was a 1 in 5 chance that I had cancer. Now that I look back on it, she probably was not very good at math (It was more like a .1% chance of oral cancer IF you were 50 and smoked, was an alcoholic, or dipped). Also, the dentist didn't help either. You never want to hear the words "uh oh" when you are being subjected to a cancer screening. Long story short, I freaked out for a week all for nothing. I really think that it was the fact that I was under a lot of stress with work and a new baby and that this just pushed me over the edge.

Although it was all for nothing, this period of intense fear had a more profound psychological impact. I started looking at every single part of my life under a microscope. After much soul searching, one issue in particular was a problem. Looking in the face of your own mortality is an extremely unsettling event. I always never really worried about death because of my faith. I then had the thought..."What if I have been wrong all this time and God does not really exist?" Needless to say that this sent me in a philosophical downward spiral. I started visiting atheist websites and reading a lot of atheist arguments....they made sense. Maybe I had fooled myself all of this time. It was really unsettling to realize that what you have believed in for so long could just be wishful thinking.

I spent a couple of weeks searching and searching. Reading all the arguments that I could get my hands on. Reading multiple philosophies and philosophers. Some topics and people covered in my search were evolution, determinism, free will, indeterminism, Nietzsche, Russel, Kirkegaard , Kant, Freud, etc. Then I moved on to the "new atheists" which include Dawkins, Harris, Carrier, etc. I also read many atheist blogs and watched many atheist videos on youtube.

The next phase of my search led me to several theistic blogs and websites. I have to admit that I was surprised at the contrast. Most of the theistic blogs were very well thought out and were very intellectual. (***Please read the next paragraph before judging me as biased as that I think that there is a reason for this***) There were,however, definitely some that were the mirror images of their vitriolic atheistic counterparts. This was satisfying in that it showed me that there were intelligent believers out there. One point that is a constant on the atheist blogs is that believers are not very intellectual.

I am not insinuating that all atheists are vitriolic and bigoted and all believers are intellectual. I think that this is more of a byproduct of the internet. Nearly all of the atheistic sites could be thought of as the "offense" and it seems like most of the theistic websites are "defense." Atheists are more outspoken and critical of religions so it then follows that the theistic sites are more responses to these critical assessments.

To be honest, the atheistic argument does not resonate with my personal view of reality and the workings of existence. The purpose of this blog is to serve as a journal of the path that I am currently on. Many atheists will probably not like this blog because I will most likely concentrate on the theistic side of the argument. I realize this bias but the bias is only superficial. My training as a scientist provides enough ammunition for the atheistic side of the argument. Also, if I were able to reject the atheistic argument so easily then I would not be here writing this blog.