Former atheist astrophysicist, Sarah Salviander, explains her journey to Christianity.


Testimony of former atheist Sarah Salviander. Salviander is a research scientist in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Texas.

“I was born in the U.S., but grew up in Canada. My parents were socialists and political activists who thought British Columbia would be a better place for us to live, since it had the only socialist government in North America at the time. My parents were also atheists, though they eschewed that label in favor of “agnostic.” They were kind, loving, and moral, but religion played no part in my life. Instead, my childhood revolved around education, particularly science. I remember how important it was to my parents that my brother and I did well in school.

I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, a time when science fiction was enjoying a renaissance, thanks largely to the popularity of Star Wars. I remember how fascinated I was by the original Star Wars trilogy. It had almost nothing to do with science—it’s more properly characterized as space opera—but it got me thinking about space in a big way. I also loved the original Star Trek, which was more science fiction. The stoic and logical character of Mr. Spock was particularly appealing to me. Popular science was also experiencing a renaissance at that time, which had a lot to do with Carl Sagan’s television show, Cosmos, which I adored. The combination of these influences led to such an intense wonder about outer space and the universe, that by the time I was nine years old I knew I would be a space scientist someday.

Canada was already post-Christian by the 1970s, so I grew up with no religion. In retrospect, it’s amazing that for the first 25 years of my life, I met only three people who identified as Christian. My view of Christianity was negative from an early age, and by the time I was in my twenties I was actively hostile toward Christianity. Looking back, I realized a lot of this was the unconscious absorption of the general hostility toward Christianity that is common in places like Canada and Europe; my hostility certainly wasn’t based on actually knowing anything about Christianity. I had come to believe that Christianity made people weak and foolish; I thought it was philosophically trivial. I was ignorant not only of the Bible, but also of the deep philosophy of Christianity and the scientific discoveries that shed new light on the origins of the universe and life on Earth.

I began to focus all of my energy on my studies, and became very dedicated to my physics and math courses. I joined campus clubs, started to make friends, and, for the first time in my life, I was meeting Christians. They weren’t like Objectivists—they were joyous and content. And, they were smart, too. I was astonished to find that my physics professors, whom I admired, were Christian. Their personal example began to have an influence on me, and I found myself growing less hostile to Christianity.

I had joined a group in the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences (CASS) that was researching evidence for the big bang. The cosmic background radiation—the leftover radiation from the big bang—provides the strongest evidence for the theory, but cosmologists need other, independent lines of evidence to confirm it. My group was studying deuterium abundances in the early universe. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, and its abundance in the early universe is sensitive to the amount of ordinary mass contained in the entire universe. Believe it or not, this one measurement tells us whether the big bang model is correct.

If anyone is interested in how this works, I’ll describe it, but for now I’ll spare you the gruesome details. Suffice it to say that an amazing convergence of physical properties is necessary in order to study deuterium abundances in the early universe, and yet this convergence is exactly what we get. I remember being astounded by this, blown away, completely and utterly awed. It seemed incredible to me that there was a way to find the answer to this question we had about the universe. In fact, it seems that every question we have about the universe is answerable. There’s no reason it has to be this way, and it made me think of Einstein’s observation that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it’s comprehensible. I started to sense an underlying order to the universe. Without knowing it, I was awakening to what Psalm 19 tells us so clearly, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

That summer, I’d picked up a copy of The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas and was reading it in my off hours. Previous to this, I’d only known it as an exciting story of revenge, since that’s what the countless movie and TV adaptations always focused on. But it’s more than just a revenge story, it’s a philosophically deep examination of forgiveness and God’s role in giving justice. I was surprised by this, and was starting to realize that the concept of God and religion was not as philosophically trivial as I had thought.

All of this culminated one day, as I was walking across that beautiful La Jolla campus. I stopped in my tracks when it hit me—I believed in God! I was so happy; it was like a weight had been lifted from my heart. I realized that most of the pain I’d experienced in my life was of my own making, but that God had used it to make me wiser and more compassionate. It was a great relief to discover that there was a reason for suffering, and that it was because God was loving and just. God could not be perfectly just unless I—just like everyone else—was made to suffer for the bad things I’d done.

For a while I was content to be a theist and didn’t pursue religion any further. I spent another very enjoyable summer with CASS, and then during my last year at EOU I met a man I liked very much, a computer science student from Finland. He’d been in the special forces in the Finnish Defense Force, and was just about the most off-the-wall character I’d ever met. But he was also a man of strength, honor, and deep integrity, and I found myself overwhelmingly drawn to those qualities. Like me, he’d grown up atheist in a secular country, but he’d come to embrace God and Jesus Christ as his personal savior in his early twenties through an intensely personal experience. We fell in love and got married. Somehow, even though I wasn’t religious myself, I was comforted to be marrying a Christian man.

I graduated with a degree in physics and math that year, and in the fall, I started graduate work in astrophysics at The University of Texas at Austin. My husband was a year behind me in his studies, so I moved to Austin by myself. The astrophysics program at UT was a much more rigorous and challenging environment than my little alma mater. The academic rigor, combined with the isolation I felt with my family and friends being so far away, left me feeling pretty discouraged.

Wandering through a bookstore one day, I saw a book called The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. I was intrigued by the title, but something else compelled me to read it. Maybe it was the loneliness, and I was longing for a deeper connection with God. All I know is that what I read changed my life forever.

Dr. Schroeder is a unique individual—he is an MIT-trained physicist and also an applied theologian. He understands modern science, has read the ancient and medieval biblical commentaries, and is capable of translating the Old Testament from the ancient Hebrew. He was thus able to give a scientific analysis of Genesis 1. His work proved to me that Genesis 1 was scientifically sound, and not just a “silly myth” as atheists believed. I realized that, remarkably, the Bible and science agree completely. (If you’re interested in the details of this, you can either go through my slideshow here or read Dr. Schroeder’s book.)

Schroeder’s great work convinced me that Genesis is the inspired word of God. But something told me to keep going. If Genesis is literally true, then why not the Gospels, too? I read the Gospels, and found the person of Jesus Christ to be extremely compelling. I felt as Einstein did when he said he was “enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” And yet I struggled, because I did not feel one hundred percent convinced of the Gospels in my heart. I knew of the historical evidence for their truth. And, of course, I knew the Bible was reliable because of Genesis. Intellectually, I knew the Bible to be true, and as a person of intellect, I had to accept it as truth, even if I didn’t feel it. That’s what faith is. As C. S. Lewis said, it is accepting something you know to be true in spite of your emotions. So, I converted. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

Maybe that sounds coldly logical. It did to me, and for that reason, I sometimes worried whether my faith was real. And then I had a chance to find out a couple of years ago. That year started with my cancer diagnosis and an unpleasant course of treatment. Not long after, my husband fell ill with meningitis and encephalitis, and it was not clear if he would recover; we didn’t know if he would be paralyzed or worse. It took him about a month, but, thankfully, he did recover. At that time, we were expecting our first child, a baby girl. All seemed well until about six months, when our baby stopped growing. We found out she had Trisomy 18, a fatal chromosomal abnormality. Our daughter, Ellinor, was stillborn soon after.

It was the most devastating loss of our lives. For a while I despaired, and didn’t know how I could go on after the death of our daughter. But I finally had a clear vision of our little girl in the loving arms of her heavenly Father, and it was then that I had peace. I reflected that, after all these trials in one year, my husband and I were not only closer to each other, but also felt closer to God. My faith was real.

I don’t know how I would’ve coped with such trials when I was an atheist. When you’re twenty years old and healthy, and you have your family around you, you feel immortal. I never thought about my own death or the potential deaths of loved ones. But there comes a time when the feeling of immortality wanes, and you’re forced to confront the inevitability of not only your own annihilation, but that of your loved ones.

A few years ago, when I was researching an article on the nature of time, I was surprised to discover that only the Abrahamic faiths and their offshoots hold to linear time. All other religious traditions hold to cyclical time. Not only does cyclical time seem more intuitively correct—our lives are governed by many cycles in nature—but it offers a comforting connection to the Sacred through the eternal return. The modern, secular version of this is the Multiverse.

Georges Lemaître was a Belgian priest and physicist who solved Einstein’s general relativity equations and discovered that, contrary to the prevailing philosophy of the last 2,500 years, the universe wasn’t necessarily eternal and static. He discovered in his solution the mathematical evidence for an expanding universe, and pursued it vigorously. For that reason he’s considered the father of the big bang (which he called “the hypothesis of the primeval atom”). Shortly before he died, he was told that his hypothesis had been vindicated by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the most important prediction of the hypothesis. This discovery also vindicated the very first words of the Bible after 2,500 years of doubt—there was a beginning. And that beginning meant the universe had a transcendent cause, for nothing in nature is its own cause. Atheists have been dismayed by this and forced to retreat to the idea of the Multiverse.

The Multiverse idea posits that there is a huge number—possibly an infinite number—of parallel universes. It’s an interesting, but ultimately unscientific, idea. Science can only study what we can observe in this Universe. It cannot ever hope to study the Multiverse. Nevertheless, some atheists cling to the idea, because it’s the only serious alternative to God as the creative force behind the Universe and it’s a way to cope with mortality in the absence of God. The problem is, most proponents of the Multiverse haven’t seriously explored its logical implications. I think, when they do, their worldview leads to despair.

Hugh Everett is an example of this. He was a brilliant physicist who is known for what’s called the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. He sought to explain the strange, almost mystical, effects of the quantum world by rejecting its dependence on probabilities. He proposed instead that every possible outcome of every experiment really happens, but they happen in alternate universes. This was the first scientific incarnation of the Multiverse.

Everett was not motivated solely by mathematics. He understood the implications of his atheist beliefs, and was looking for a way to escape the annihilation that is inevitable in the atheist worldview. For him, the Many Worlds idea was a form of immortality. He wanted to believe that there were an infinite number of Hugh Everetts, all inhabiting these alternate universes, because it was a way to avoid the terror of annihilation. But, as Jesus told us, we must judge a tree by its fruits. Everett’s worldview did not appear to offer him, or his family, any real comfort. He was a depressed alcoholic who ate, drank, and smoked himself to death at the age of 51. His daughter committed suicide years later, and indicated in her suicide note that she hoped she would end up in the same parallel universe as her father.

In the Multiverse, we are not unique; there are many “copies” of each of us. If it’s real, then we have lived, and will live, an infinite number of lives. In fact, we have already lived this exact life an infinite number of times. All those lives are lost and pointless. We will live them an infinite number of times again. Everett and others who believe in the Multiverse have not conquered death; they think they’ve found a way to cheat it, but this form of “immortality” is really just a prison from which there is no escape. Does that sound awful to you? It sounds awful to me. As with the philosophy of Ayn Rand, the Multiverse is ultimately barren of hope and purpose.

I do not believe we are locked in that sort of prison. But the only way we are free is if the universe and everything in it was created, not by some unconscious mechanism, but by a personal being—the God of the Bible. The only way our lives are unique, purposeful, and eternal is if a loving God created us.”

103 responses to “Former atheist astrophysicist, Sarah Salviander, explains her journey to Christianity.

  1. Wow!!! Reading is believing and it did stir
    my heart. As an atheist, you have enlighten
    What I believe will change many lives.
    Through your studies, God was in the mist
    of it all. He was directing your path from an
    unbeliever to a believer. Everything you
    have written inspired me to let others read
    this article. By chance, did you write a
    book of your experiences with. I am not very educated but I understood everything you
    have written. There are many others have experienced the same way. I thank you very
    of your experiences which will fulfill my
    ministry. I am a voice for the Lord and not
    not a minister. As I have stated earlier, I have
    inspired by your article. May the Lord richly
    bless in every way.

  2. Sarah, your testimony leaves me breathless, because it is so close to my own life story. I too was raised by a militant atheistic, and very left wing family (in my case my parents were members of the Communist Party) and was taught to believe that Christianity was evil. I too went into science (biochemistry) which I loved. And I too found the possibility of God from my scientific studies. In my case a different book showed me that I was not crazy, it was Francis Collins The Language of God. And now like you, I am devoted to Jesus Christ as my savior. God bless you, and keep you and your family. I would write more, but my hands are shaking and the page is blurry through my tears of joy. Thank you.

  3. I’m curious about the deuterium argument she mentions that she says is the one measurement that can prove or disprove the big bang. From what I have read about the Big Bang model, there are lots of problems with it. This article talks about deuterium and other elements that would have had to be produced if the standard model is correct and it highlights the inconsistencies.

  4. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. Listen for the “still small voice” of Almighty Creator God and His Spirit will “lead you unto all truth”.

  5. Pingback: Atheists and Apologetics | happilyevermurray.·

  6. Nothing makes me feel better than reading a story of atheist who found God and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is so incredibly helpful to hear this, as I was agnostic for most of my life, came to Christ in 2005, thrn suffered a terrible faith crisis last year. I’m slowly working my way back to a better faith, your story and conviction really helps me.

  7. The Urantia Book (or Earth Book) explains and corrects all of the mid-understandings within THE BIBLE and within Christianity for all humans do understand now.


  8. Pingback: Angry Atheists in Action - CultureWatch Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch·

  9. I was born muslim then turned to science in uni then after many miracles to Jesus as Saviour.

    Now our knowledge weak and we resist the miraculous even when it is right before our eyes.

    For example, a cross on Mars thousands of kilometers high suggests recursion of the Gospel across eons and planets :

    • The problem is that the human brain is a pattern seaker. Visually and otherwise. Have you ever wondered why you can see faces in the grain of wood or other random patterns? Our brain was evolved to pick out faces as a survival trait.

      The same is true for events. We love to match events with conscious action even when there is none. So called miracles are only called that when one does not uncover the truth of a particular event. Imbuing the event with conscious action makes it special in our minds when no discovery is undertaken to uncover they”why”. Not taking the effort to uncover the “why” only serves to take away our humanity by reducing us to unreasoning animals.

      It is the human’s ability to reason that sets us apart from most other life on Earth. Failing to reason debases us a a species. Religion is s crutch that removes our humanity.

      • Humans are pattern seekers. That is true. However, that doesn’t mean that seeking patterns and applying them is less than intellectual. For example, mathematics and science are built on seeking patterns and applying them, and also looking for anomalies in those patterns. Miracles are anomalies in patterns. I’m assuming, due to your closing statement, that you believe Christians are pattern seekers. However, we are all pattern seekers. Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on that. And remember, Christians are not blind followers of some outmoded philosophy. Religion and intelligence are not antithetical.

  10. Sarah is simply making a statement of faith here. There is no science involved in her conversion… and here conclusion simply is a restatement of her faith. No proof is presented. I personally know a Christian who committed suicide… So to offer this of proof of the phalicy of believing in the multiverse is dishonest at best. I did enjoy reading her story though…

    • I do not disagree with some of you assertions; someone being unhappy or committing suicide does not point to a person being an atheist, christian, or other. Sarah does mention that science brought her to the conclusion that there was order in all of the universe and writers like Gerald Schroeder helped her to make sense of Genesis in the context of modern science so I do think science played a role in her conversion. I think that believing that materialism is ultimate true requires faith just as believing there is a God. At some point you have to take all of the knowledge you have gained and your life experiences and come to a conclusion about the universe. I think human free will, our desire to make moral decisions, our concept of art, beauty, love, charity, etc. point to something beyond materialism. I also think writers like Gerald Schroeder, Stephen Meyer, John Lennox, and others, actually show how science points to a creator. Obviously others would disagree and have come to other conclusions; its a personal decision of each of us to make.

      • The difference between faith based belief and scientific experimentation is that the latter is repeatably objective. Meaning that had I the knowledge, resources, and will I could repeat and confirm any finding confirmed by other experiments. I am the only limiting factor to confirming what has already been confirmed through others’ experimentation. No faith is actually required. You can believe something is true by judging the experimental evidence. That, however, is different from faith, which requires no evidence.

        On the other hand, faith based belief is purely subjective. There is nothing objective about it. While based on similar themes (e.g. Christian, Islam, etc.) groups of people may have similar experiences. Ultimately each person has their own different subjective experience. The only thing connecting those disparate experiences is the worldview through which they prescribe. It is the worldview that colors one’s faith and experiences.

        • A great deal of what is considered to be science is not the result of experimentation; much is theory. If science was purely objective then all scientists would agree on all science. On the other hand, religious faith is not purely blind faith it can be based on scientific evidence that leads one to believe the best explanation for what is observed is a creator, or God. Once one comes to conclusion that there is a God once can also examine evidence for a belief in Christ. Sure on has to have faith as well but its not all blind faith, its faith supported by evidence and experience.

          • You misunderstand the term theory. Everything that is proven by experimentation is theory. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Yes, it’s true that theories can be modified to fit new experimental information. However, that is the point. That is the basis of scientific inquiry. Even as good as our theories might be there could always be new information that comes along that changes previous theories.

            As far as faith based on evidence I’m not really sure what you are referring to. To put it bluntly holy books are not evidence. They are written by humans. They may describe events that may or may not have occurred. However, as has been shown eye witness testimony is one of the least accurate forms of evidence.

            • Well I wish you well in your journey. My faith is not based only on holy writings as I have referenced, and Sarah as well, although they do play an important role in my life.

  11. Very much enjoyed reading Sarah’s story. For those of you interested in the intersection of science and faith and open minded about the possibility of God I would strongly recommend reading some of the writings from Gerald Schroeder, Stephen Meyers, and John Lennox. The Science of God is a good starting place.

  12. Thank you for your story of how you became a Christian. I’m passing it along to my Agnostic grandson.

  13. Pingback: Worldviews are hard to change | anobodygospel·

  14. Fabulous story of how in a vast universe, God spoke and you heard in a very personal way to know that you are loved Sarah. Only God ‘s voice could have reached you by His Spirit.. that part of Science belongs to the mysteries of God. Thank you for sharing , and pray blessing on you and the lives you touch with your story.

  15. This is very peculiar for someone to turn to Christianity after having immersed themselves in science and other truths. I can’t imagine what went wrong. I sincerely believe people turn to religion after suffering trauma, or after they’ve done something wrong like committed a crime. It seems to be something people need rather than want. I personally don’t come down hard on people who are religious, but I am a strong advocate of living life religion-free, with an emphasis on belief in ourselves, others, nature, the universe, the laws of physics and the universe. It just seems so much more rational and comforting to me.

    • Why should people care about of what is rational and comforting to you? There is no point in it simply because we all shall stop existing. And what is your definition for living life religion-free? I am a Quran following Muslim who instead of upholding 5 pillows of sectarian Islam choose “belief in ourselves, others, nature, the laws of physics and the universe”. Do I shed them because they are in the original Islam? Also it seems that majority of the Christians, Jews and others are upholding them. Otherwise, there would have been no civilization. Your comment on what you find peculiar is pretty fairy tale like. You are talking about science but I bet you won’t do a single experiment to know whether there is any truth to whether God exists. Please do that first by praying everyday to God asking him to get your parents murdered in the worst possible way. If it ends up happening in real life you will know whether God exists. If you start shivering while uttering such prayer know that you are just in denial about him.

      • Because rationality by definition is universal. Rationality is belief that can be proven through reason and/or factual analysis. It is purely objective.

        Conversely, religious faith is purely subjective. Each person has their own different subjective personal experience. Those experiences may be based in similar ideologies (e.g. Christian, Islam, etc) so they may have similarities. However, no person is going to have exactly the same experience.

        Much of this is rooted in how are brains let us experience the world. For example, we don’t actually see the world directly through our eyes. Our brains first buffer and filter the images from our eyes through a kind of belief matrix. If what is seen does not match what we understand it tries to make it fit in the world we understand. That is how optical illusions work. It’s our brain trying to make sense of what it sees fit with how we understand the world works.

        In a sense our whole understanding of the world around us is an illusion created by our brains. Most of the time it works well enough for us. This can cause problems with people who have slow reflexes (meaning their brain is slow to react to change) or whose brains have been damaged and so see things that really aren’t there.

        On an experiment for the existence of god. How would one create such an experiment that would be testable and repeatable? Testability and repeatability are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Since experiencing god is purely subjective there can be no test to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.

        • Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Why do you think she has to pray for God to murder her parent?
          She has found God.


        • Dear Taddeusz: Perhaps the statement, “Conversely, religious faith is purely subjective…” needs to be re-evaluated. It is a common “belief” (assumption?) that “faith” is subjective, but science is “objective.” Even within the limits of the English language, upon simple examination, one understands that religious doctrine is not merely subjective, but objective. Take an ordinance, i.e., the Lord’s dinner (commonly referred to as “Supper”, Gk: deipnon, 1 Cor. 11:20). There are two elements, bread and wine. The manner in which the ordinance is conducted is the same in every case. However, what one “feels” before, during, and after this ordinance may be different. The manner in which the ordinance is conducted is the same. The repetition of this ordinance each time is likened to a science experiment: both have conditions and are repeatable, with a desired result. Prosaic language can’t convey the experience, but I am sure that to the delight of a child, lighting a bunsen burner for the first (and repeated times) brings surprise and elation. While adults may get used to going through the motions of “communion” (Eucharist-“I give thanks”), lighting the bunsen in the chemistry lab (ad infinitum) is a repeated experiment, of which the outcome is known, and is necessary for didactic purposes. “Faith” or “belief” (Gk: pistis) only differs with respects to the object of faith. Sadly, the oft-missed and overlooked point on the nature of humanity is the restoration spiritual life to the human soul, lost in the case of the first two human beings. That Jesus is called the Second-Adam/man (1 Cor. 15:45-47) is often lost among other doctrines. Thus, an a priori assumption concerning the nature of the human soul in relation to God are deemed irrelevant. While many may regard Plato’s Republic (on the Soul) as also “irrelevant”, it is perhaps noteworthy that his mental prowess has not made more impact upon the modern mind–lest one thinks that Plato was somehow an unworthy candidate in light of modern philosophy or science? Indeed, the Latin maxim “ignoramus et ignorabimus” applies when speaking the limitations of science. The same can be said about established doctrines. Subjective feelings about quarks and creeds are alike. Just ask a blind person.

          • What is meant by repeatability is that you perform the same action over and over again and get the same result.

            In your example of the lord’s supper you have it backward. The performance of the ritual is the “test” and each person’s feelings are the result. Since person has their own differing individual feelings as a result of the ritual then this example has no repeatability. In fact, I would argue that this isn’t really a test and so also fails at being testable.

            As far as the so called soul is concerned you assume one exists. There have actually been failed experiments to attempt to measure the existence of a soul through empirical means. I have seen no evidence in my life to suggest that there really is such a thing as a soul. Using Occam’s Razor one can deduce that the simplest explanation of the existence of our consciousness is that there is no soul. That our consciousness arises out of the collective power of neurons in our brains. Alas, more recent research on how consciousness arises confirms this.

            The moment one invokes the superstitious to explain the apparently unexplainable they debase the intellect of humanity.

            • For those of you who would attain the higher state of conciousness to make sense of our inner and outer worlds, I would suggest the free book ‘Man or Matter’.
              Or a short cut,
              ” Stanislav Grof has written that religious and mystical experiences observed during LSD sessions appear to be phenomenologically indistinguishable from similar descriptions in the sacred scriptures of the great religions of the world and the texts of ancient civilizations.”

              • Dear John, thanks for mentioning Grof’s point. He is correct (in terms of measurement). Similarly, the late Dr. Frank Lake, MD; DPM, wrote about his brief use of Lysergic acid in psychiatric practice (Clinical Theology,1966, re-print, 1996). He used minute levels of LSD-25 (a crystalline compound from which LSD-25 can be made) when treating patients suffering from internal states of pain during a 12-month period. However, he found the same “abreactive” results without LSD-25 use. His findings with clergy and parishioners are extremely straightforward and honest. He says, “Religion and medicine in Britain are more dedicated to concepts of mental health which owe more to successful repression of anxiety than to any of the ways of confronting it.” It is a fascinating read, especially the first 30pp of introduction.

              • No action (the future)can be taken without imagination.
                Imagination (the present) is built from memories (the past).
                This powerfull idea has many expressions.
                Thinking, feeling (sensing) and willing.
                Input, organisation and output.
                The father, the son and the holy ghost.
                The holy trinity.
                The father, son and grand son relationship.
                The four horsemen.
                The tree of life (the heart), The tree of knowledge (the brain), and the garden of Eden (the result of balance between heart and mind).
                Exact sensorial perception.
                The wisdom of fairy tales.
                The limitations of objective thinking, subjective thinking, and the state of ‘super conciousness’.
                All comunication is symbolic in nature and with out knowledge of the meanings of the symbols used by the author’s, only a superficial understanding can be gained by taking these teachings literally.

    • I have felt the Holy Spirit, at the time it had never been described to me how other people felt His presence and I wasn’t expecting it as I had no idea that anyone even actually physically “felt” anything either so no one can say I imagined it and I have felt Gods presence several times since. Since the first time I experienced God I have been to churches where people speak in tongues and where miracles happen in front of my own eyes in both big and small churches alike. This is proof and there is so much evidence out there. Why don’t you ask God, even if you don’t beleive, ask Him, if He really exists, will he show you?

  16. Hi, thanks for the cool story! I’d like permission to translate it into German and put it on our new church’s website – – along with the pic. We’re collecting stories like this in hopes they will spur predominantly atheistic East Germans to consider God and Christianity.

  17. Father Spitzer on you tube also brilliantly shows how science and faith go hand in hand. I think you would all enjoy it an find it very enlightening.

  18. Thank you for your witness. I am hardly educated, mediocre smart, didn’t do well in math, but science has always intrigued me. I shall read the books/authors that you recommend.

Let me know your thoughts!

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

You are commenting using your 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