Krauss claims that “Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” But this simply isn’t true. At best we can only claim that what we know about science at this point in time doesn’t fully explain how certain miracles happened. The Bible says that Jesus rubbed dirt and spit in a blind man’s eyes and then told him to go wash his eyes in a contaminated, filthy pool of water, and then the man’s blindness is cured. Sounds fantastic, but only because we don’t know how it happened. We cannot legitimately claim that it is impossible. To do so one would have to prove that under no circumstances could the actions taken in that story result in blindness being cured.

What’s especially interesting about science with regards to religion is that the scientific method itself is based on faith. A hypothesis is an expression of faith. It says, in effect, “I believe that if we do such and such, that such and such will follow.” We then create tests to prove or disprove our statement of faith.

You can find atheistic scientists who have faith in all sorts of things the rest of us would find ridiculous or impossible. Most of the technology we have today would have sounded ridiculous and impossible a mere 50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago. It took faith to believe man could fly through the air, and without that faith we wouldn’t have airplanes today that can carry many tons of cargo thousands of miles through the air in a few hours. It took faith to create computers, the Internet, the light bulb, pharmaceuticals, etc. Before any of it was created it was “seen” with the eye of faith. And many more inventions and discoveries will be made in the future. I would guess there are many scientists who don’t believe in God, yet have no trouble believing that someday man will travel throughout space at, near to, or faster than the speed of light. It is true that some discoveries are made accidentally, but generally when someone is “expressing faith” in something else. It is rare that someone invents something or discovers something when they are looking for nothing at all, or not trying to create something.

The difference between faith in revealed science and faith in God is the supporting evidence. Naturally, there is more evidence to support the things we already know than there is to support things we don’t know. But a lack of knowledge about something is no reason to disregard it. Just because what limited information we have about God (which may or may not be correct) sounds hokey, that doesn’t mean it’s a matter not worth investigating. If we were to extend this line of thinking to science, then where would we be today? How many inventions would not exist? How much knowledge would still be hidden? How many diseases would remain uncured if scientists looked at a sick person and said “I have no evidence to convince me it is possible to cure this person, therefore I will not try.”

On the contrary, if God really does exist, what more important discovery could there possibly be? So many people have so much “faith” that there is no God based on so little evidence.

But what if there is a God? What if he has a plan for us? What if it is integral to that plan that we are not allowed to know for sure whether he exists or not unless we already want to believe he does? Then those who do not want to believe in God will receive no convincing signs that he does, while those who do want to believe he exists will receive evidence of his existence. And naturally, those who do not receive such evidence will think those who claim to have received such evidence are crazy, and vice versa.

My advice to scientific atheists would be to not base your belief in the non-existence of God on what you think you know about God. Maybe what you think you know about God is wrong. Maybe there is a God but he’s not like anything you’ve imagined before. Maybe there is no conflict between science and belief in God, only unresolved questions. If there is a God, is it worth missing out on that knowledge because you based your theory on faulty information?

While I was a missionary in training at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah, I had so many problems with my first companion that I actively tried to get him kicked off his mission and sent back home. It didn’t work, and instead they just switched him and me with another duo of missionaries so that we all had new companions. My new companion was Elder Dallin Woolstenhulme, and I got along with him only slightly better than my first companion (who, incidentally and ironically is my best friend today). Over a decade later it’s easy to laugh at our immaturity (at least for me, hopefully for my companions as well).

Elder Woolstenhulme went to a different mission than I did, and so I didn’t see him for a number of years after the one month we spent as companions. I saw him a few years later at BYU, and then lost contact. Recently we reconnected via Facebook, and I was surprised to find out that he had left the LDS Church, was gay, and an atheist. So I did what anyone would do–I invited him to enter into a series of public discussions with me on a blog.

You might think I just run this blog so I can criticize anti-Mormons and spout my point of view, but it’s more than just that. I actually am interested in understanding where other people are coming from. I’m fascinated by how two people can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions. I thoroughly enjoy talking to people who have different perspectives simply to find out how they arrived at their conclusions–not because I then want to turn around and try and prove them wrong, but because I simply find it interesting without needing any other objective.

But even though I could do this for my own satisfaction, I think a greater benefit can be achieved by doing it publicly, which is that I believe Dallin and I, despite our strong and divergent opinions, can discuss these matters in a logical way such that Mormons can understand more about ex-Mormons, gays, and atheists, and ex-Mormons, gays, and atheists might end up understanding more about Mormons. I think this kind of understanding was sorely lacking in the recent confrontation between various groups over Prop 8 in California. There seemed to be so much yelling and misrepresentation from both sides that nobody really understood where the other side was coming from. The voices of reason and logic were drowned out by the strident voices of those who remind me of 2nd-graders arguing on the playground who believe that whoever yells the loudest and swears the most wins the argument.

Here there will be no insults–just open and honest debate. That isn’t to say we won’t get heated or passionate about what we’re saying, but we’re going to try and keep it above the yelling and screaming we see so much of today.

I was interested in doing this with Dallin not only because he’s my only ex-Mormon, gay, atheist friend, but because he’s an intellectually-minded type of guy who I believe is capable of entering into a productive discussion on this matter.

The format will be as follows: I will post, Dallin will respond in the comments, and we’ll go back and forth as we feel like it. I don’t know how to allow only one person to comment, so others may throw in their comments from time to time. If the comments are useful and further the discussion, I’ll leave them up. If they’re distracting from the main point, then they’ll be deleted.

And now I’ll let Dallin introduce himself and add any pertinent information he feels motivated to give.