In Western Civilization where monotheism predominates, everyone has to settle the issue of whether he believes God exists or not. Some find God rather easily as a gift of faith from their parents and their religion, never really questioning. Others, as part of a teenage rebellion, question everything their parents taught them, and settle the issue as part of personal growth into adulthood. Obviously some come to reaccept God, some become agnostics, and some atheists. What is contained here is a compendium of my search, my discoveries and my reasons for recognizing God as the source of all we behold. I faced the question not as a teenager but as an adult starting in college, and it has been a long journey for me. I knew I had to decide. I could not just leave it that I was an agnostic because I wasn’t. With my medical training the science kept saying, “Everything can be explained; who needs God?” But the miracles I saw and experienced in my medical practice kept telling me there is a God. Without faith given to me, as I will explain, I had to be convinced, and I am convinced now that I have searched and studied. It might surprise you, but the search was primarily scientific and with logical deductive reasoning, not by delving into religious teachings as a sole approach—although philosophy and theology were part of the quest.

For over 500 years scientific discoveries have explained the seemingly unexplainable, and during the twentieth century at an ever faster and faster rate. Natural processes that seemed miraculous were explored and understood in ordinary terms, no longer requiring the supernatural explanations that religion had been providing. Scientists became convinced that given enough time and money they could discover how every natural process worked. They feel they don’t need God to do this, and they have tried to convince the lay public of that expectation. This has set up an ongoing conflict between science and religion, a war of sorts, which I have discovered need not exist. The public, in general, has not accepted the assertion by science that God is not needed. Over 90 percent of us believe, while only 40 percent of all scientists express faith in God, falling to about 10 percent among leading scientists. In part, the conflict comes from the fact that science and religion have two different purposes: science studies the “how” while  religion is concerned with the “why” of the universe and the life we experience. Studying both the “how” and the ‘why” can bring them together, as I intend to show, but not by creating a religion out of science as some scientists have attempted. This is scientism: “formally defined [as] a psychological process of taking the currently accepted scientific theories about how the universe functions and subtly starting to regard them as if they were the absolute truth, beyond any further serious questioning. Thus the process of science becomes an “ism,” becomes a dogmatic belief system, like many of our most dogmatic religions.” (From the Forward by Charles T. Tart, Ph. D. for Mindsight, Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind, Kenneth Ring & Sharon Cooper, 1999). Dogmatic approaches by both science and religion have kept them apart and as adversaries. The war between science and religion is a war that should never have occurred, but true to our human failings it did. The chapters that follow this Introduction contain the reasons why the war is a mistake.

I have written this book as a very personal account of my own search for God. Since I am attempting to present my reasoning for accepting God on scientific and logical grounds, it is important for the reader to understand my background and why I struggled. My personal history affects my reasoning and outlook, and my life should be understood by the reader to allow him to evaluate what I present. I was raised in a very secular family. My parents were first-generation native-born Americans, all my grandparents having come into this country from Eastern Europe.

My mother’s family was absolutely secular. Their approach to religion was off-hand and as a subordinate part of their Jewish culture. They were American Jews, trying to assimilate. One aunt became Unitarian; another aunt who lived with me at the end of her life, dying of breast cancer in the brain, denied there was a God or an afterlife. My father’s family were practicing Orthodox Jews, and he had been trained carefully in the religious practices. Upon marrying he had immediately accepted my mother’s approach, but he never could get himself to eat pork or shellfish. My mother told me there was a God, and gave me a small child’s book of Old Testament bible stories. She taught me right and wrong, as parents do, but I didn’t hear much evidence that the rules came from God. From the time I was four years old until nine we lived in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood. Despite the fact I was sent to a synagogue Sunday school, and we all occasionally went to High Holy Day services, I had a two-foot tall imitation Christmas tree, was told about Santa Claus, and was given Christmas presents. My Catholic friends told me Santa didn’t exist, and I had to insist, at about age seven, to my parents that we were supposed to celebrate Chanukah. Christmas disappeared.

My teenage years were no better: I celebrated a Bar Mitzvah by learning the Hebrew alphabet and rote-memorizing the Torah portions. I was bored by Sunday school and allowed to quit after the Bar Mitzvah was accomplished. At the Jewish Temple of my childhood faith in God was never an issue. God was simply assumed and faith not mentioned. Heaven was a concept not discussed. Arriving in college was another matter. I was suddenly exposed to all sorts of theological beliefs in dormitory discussions. I had no idea why I was the Jewish person I thought I was, other than I had been born into it. A letter to my Rabbi produced a list of books on Jewish history and theology, and having read them I concluded I liked being Jewish, but I was still no closer to God. The scientific training I received in college and medical school simply pushed me further into believing that science would eventually have all the answers about life and our Universe.

Out in a well-established medical practice I had time to begin reading outside the medical journals. My interests lead me to lay literature on astronomy, high-energy particle physics, quantum theory and the application of these subjects in the rapidly developing and exciting field of cosmology. I investigated books on the philosophy of cosmology. I also read several books on human evolution after seeing a cast of Lucy’s footprints at Oldivai Gorge in Tanzania. I was, initially, a confirmed believer in the Darwin approach to evolution, as presented by the Neo-Darwin scientists: We had gradually evolved from one-celled animals, driven by survival of the fittest, with mutations appearing to adapt progressively complex animals to the threats of the environment. And further, I accepted the theory that the most primitive animals first appeared by happenstance with the proper cooperating molecules simply falling together by chance to start life. All this time my consideration of God was still on the back burner. That is, until I recognized the amazing comparison between the Big Bang theory of the evolution of the Universe and the first few chapters of Genesis. How could the early writer/writers of Genesis have the intuition to describe the Big Bang before it was discovered? I was so taken with the parallelism I considered doing extensive research and writing a book comparing the two descriptions. But I didn’t have to: Gerald Schroeder, Ph. D., a particle physicist and biblical scholar published Genesis and the Big Bang in 1990. I was vaguely aware of Schroeder’s book from a review I had seen but I actually didn’t discover Gerald Schroeder until 1998 when he was touring various American cities and appearing on talk radio to introduce his new book, The Science of God, and I attended a public lecture he held. That lecture and his two books convinced me the realizations I was developing on my own had a validity I could not deny.

Further, I recognized that the ability of our brain to create the development of the type of complex theoretical mathematics required to establish the physical laws of the universe, implied an amazing capacity of the mind, which was not required for humans to evolve in the Earth’s environment. Where did that come from? It didn’t seem to me that a huntergatherer in the Stone Age needed any of the capacities for higher math, aesthetics, creating art and music, or spirituality, for that matter. Our brain was the same then as it is now. Could it be that our enormous intellect really represents a challenge and an invitation to investigate and finally understand the underlying laws and the workings of Creation?

Concurrently, over a number of years I had heard from patients who described “near to death experiences” (NDE). These uniquely uniform descriptions, about a dozen of them, were especially impressive in presenting credible evidence for an after-life. These realizations coupled with the entire combination of events in my medical practice, and other considerations presented in the many books I have read, convinced me that God created the Universe, designed for life, and brought us forth on Earth. I have concluded that, very likely, the truth of the arrival of humans may involve a combination of creation and evolution, supporting the contention that God remains active as Creator, and not as an inactive originator who simply watches.

I have written this book for several groups of people. For those with a profound faith in God, it will be seen that science is not an enemy, but actually supports the Bible’s writings in Genesis. For five hundred years science and religion have seemed to be foes, when in fact, science is unearthing facts that have brought considerations of God back into the books some of the scientists write. “The perception that religion requires faith alone is a misperception. Religion requires belief and belief is built on knowledge.” (Schroeder, The Science of God). The faithful can turn to their Bible and read in Psalm 19:2-4: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork; Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night revealeth knowledge; There is no speech, there are no words, Neither is their voice heard.” Why not turn to science to learn about that handiwork? As Elihu advised Job: “Harken unto this, O Job; Stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God. Dost thou know how God enjoineth them, and causeth the lightening of His cloud to shine? Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?” (Job 37:14-16). Why not learn how the universe works and understand some of God’s knowledge? The knowledge science provides does not replace theology but actually supports it.

Unfortunately, the American Public remains blissfully unaware of scientific findings that would actually enhance their faith, if they knew of them. For example, only 42 percent of college graduates, questioned by the Gallop Poll in 1993, knew that the dinosaurs died out over 50 million years ago. Sixty-five percent of non-college graduates had no idea when they died (Surveying the Religious Landscape, Trends in U.S. Beliefs, George Gallop, Jr. & D. Michael Lindsay, 1999). By briefly presenting a simplified scientific story of the creation and development of the universe as we now see it, and also by giving information on the origin of life and the process of evolution, I may be able to convince the reader that understanding these areas of science is worthwhile, and can enhance faith. Perhaps I can improve the general level of scientific education.

This book is also for the Creationists, some of whom deny scientific facts, as though they are the enemy, when such facts are widely accepted by both atheistic and believing scientists. I will show that a belief in a theistic Creation and in the process of Evolution can be combined. Of course, this book is also for folks like myself, searching, perhaps struggling, along the path to God. In this latter group will be independent thinkers, some of whom are within organized religion and some of whom, like myself, are disenchanted with the rigidity of doctrine in organized religion, and seek their own way. Nowhere in the Bible is there a commandment to establish organized religion, only a suggestion to pray in fellowship. Not that I am advocating that the reader should consider leaving his religion, only that he allow and follow a flexibility of thought, finding ways to become most comfortable with a system of beliefs. I am still Jewish and expanding what I believe. This book will provide a body of information with which to work, and the books quoted will offer readers an expanded bibliography to aid in their search for scientific facts and religious truth that makes them most comfortable. At the end of the book, although I present reflections on the personal theology I have developed, there is no intent to proselytize or to convince the reader that what I believe is the only truth. I have no right to try to do that. “If there is such a thing as objective truth, some of us are dead right and others dead wrong. Tolerance is necessary not because everybody is equally right, but because we have no way of proving once and for all which of us is right.” (Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations; Science, Religion and the Search for God, 1994).

And finally, this book is an appeal to atheists and agnostics to reconsider their positions, presenting, as it does, a number of arguments for the existence of God. This book does not attempt a proof of God. By definition that is impossible. God, by “the criteria of science and reason is an unknowable concept. We cannot prove or disprove God’s existence through empirical evidence or deductive proof.” (How We Believe, Michael Shermer, 1999). The book does attempt to persuade “that God exists either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons in favor of that conclusion over reasons against it.” (How to Think About God, Mortimer J. Adler, 1980). I have used Adler’s book as a guide.

This book presents both sides of many issues. The reader must have an opportunity to make up his own mind, not driven in one direction by carefully selected and slanted material. I intend to use Occam’s Razor (William of Occam, 1285?-1349?, English philosopher and theologian) in my deductive reasoning as taught in medical school: one should not assume the existence of more items than are logically necessary to reach a logical conclusion, or as actually taught to me, if you find a logical deduction using only the known facts, you will be right about 90 per cent of the time. Further, for simplicity I use male gender, unless a female pronoun is required. God is obviously genderless; however, in my usage He will be masculine. Further, as you have already seen in this Introduction, I place the references to quotes and sources right in the text. I think this is an easier way of providing the reader with references than hunting in the back of the book for a specific note.