After I rejected the strong atheism of my upbringing, I spent many years wondering what the truth was about the existence of God. I investigated several theistic and spiritual systems. At one point I became fascinated with Jewish mysticism; I read several books on Buddhism; I listened to relatives who had delved deeply into Indian religion; I learned transcendental meditation. (I even peeked into Scientology – and I fled.)

All of this convinced me that there really was something that existed beyond the material world studied by science. I called this something “spirituality”. I began thinking that maybe the idea of “God” was the immaterial manifestation of this spiritual reality. But I was also getting the sense that if that was true, God was a very distant and unknowable entity. Both the Kabballah and the sayings of the Buddha seemed to confirm this.

I found myself standing on the shores of a sea of mystery, certain that the waters hid treasures of beauty and goodness, but with no way to see them for myself.

And then, prompted by a friend, I read the Gospels. I had read some of them before in school, but only as an exercise to reinforce my atheistic scorn at the stupidity of Christianity. Back then I was focused on the magic, the contradictions, the naiveté of the ignorant who believed in scientifically impossible events like the resurrection.

When I read the Gospels the second time, my mind was open, freed of the ideological certainty of atheism. I still saw the contradictions, but now they appeared as evidence for truth, the kind of differences one would expect in true eyewitness accounts. I still saw the magic, but now it confirmed for me my new-found conviction that science is not the only pathway to truth. And now I saw the figure of Jesus Christ, and reading His words, I realized that God must have seen me standing on the shore, staring helplessly at the waves. Jesus Christ rose from those waters and held out His hand to me.

“So you want to see God?” He asked me. “Here I am.”

The above is a poetic image, but something very similar actually happened to me, in a dream about a frightening cliff, and in another about a beautiful garden. Jesus was there in both, showing me a new reality, helping me find the gate. Jesus Christ was real, He was the incarnation of God, and He was calling me.

Well, let’s take a deep breath. I was at the time, as I had been long before and remain today, a scientist. And by most objective measures, a fairly successful one. I know that dreams are images produced by neurophysiological and psychological factors, and, like so many subjective experiences, they can be easily explained  as materialistic phenomena. So perhaps I had those dreams (and other subjective experiences) because I wanted to (as I have since been told many times).

That explanation was the one I had used as a young man to dismiss several similar experiences that I couldn’t readily make sense of at the time. But now I rejected it, as I rejected atheism as a failed worldview.

I thought of the widespread belief among scientists of the late 19th century that there wasn’t much else to learn about the physics of the universe, and the idea that the origin of life would be a simple problem of chemistry to solve. What replaced all these beliefs was not something simpler and more elegant, but theories that are far more complex and perhaps even semi-mystical, bringing into question our reliance on pure materialism as the universal truth of nature. I expect the same to happen with the current popular notion that consciousness is nothing but an illusion,

To say that dreams are just neurological impulses is like saying a Kandinsky painting is just paint and canvass, a Beethoven symphony is just sound waves, and love is just a trick of hormones. One could as easily say that the ideal gas law or the Schrödinger equation are just letters and symbols with an equal sign in the middle. And what you’re looking at now is merely the geometrical arrangement of two-dimensional symbols against a white background – “reading” is an illusion.

Which brings me back to my reading of the gospels. The figure of Jesus was powerful and produced a sense of awe in my soul. But perhaps even more important to me were the mortal characters in the story. Acts of the Apostles, which I read for the first time, brought these people into sharp focus. Peter, the man who denied Christ and abandoned him at the end, and Paul, the archenemy of the new faith, sprang off the pages as real people, not the subjects of a mythological propaganda piece. I was quite used to the stories of Soviet heroes from my childhood – they were so perfect that even as a child, I suspected that there might be just a touch of exaggeration there. But Peter was weak before he became strong; Paul was headstrong and vicious before he became virtuous (if still headstrong).

It was the resurrection of Jesus Christ that produced the transformations of these men. It was the same event that brought them together and called out to so many people of the time. It was the event that led within less than 100 years to the growth of a new religion to over a million believers – despite persecution, the murders of their leaders, and the destruction of Jerusalem, the original center of the new faith.

There was no doubt in my mind as I finished Acts that the resurrection was the central point of Christianity, that it defined who Jesus was and who we are. Because I saw myself in Peter, and even more so in Paul. Not because of the great work they did after the resurrection, but because of Peter’s weakness and Paul’s intransigence. And as I finally came to accept Christ as my Lord and Savior (the details of which, along with those of my dreams I have written about elsewhere), I saw that I and all of suffering humanity are perfectly reflected in the transformed lives of these apostles.

But how can a scientist believe in miracles? That question has been asked and answered numerous times, and I have not much wisdom to add. I rejected scientism a long time ago, even while still an atheist, so I have no problem understanding that science has limits, and that miracles, by definition, are not addressable by science. Even my father, a communist, atheist, strict materialist, and also a physical chemist, told me that the scientific method is not able to address all questions in life and nature.

Science has been my lifelong passion, but I have always been enamored of history, and while I never considered making it an official professional relationship, my attachment to the lure of historical scholarship has also been a lifelong affair. Everything I have read about the history of Christianity confirms my subjective belief in the reality of Christ’s resurrection and divinity. Again, this case has been presented by many, and I can only add that I found it convincing from the time I understood the historical reality of the first century.

I believe in the resurrection of Christ because I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God on earth, and I believe in the redemption of human beings like Peter, Paul, Mary Magdalene, myself, and you. If there was no resurrection, there would have been no Christianity, and history would have been entirely different, probably without science, hope, or moral progress. As C.S. Lewis so famously said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it, I see everything else.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Resurrection

  1. Super. Thanks for sharing. I am encouraged that you share your story and put it out there. Kudos.

  2. ElectricBlue91 says:

    Love this post, Sy. Really encouraging to read. Happy New Year, my friend. I hope 2019 is going great for you. I’m officially a STEM student now and I’m loving school for the first time in a long while. Looks to be a fascinating year.

    Peace of Christ,

    • Great news, Ethan, and thanks for the feedback. I am working on final edits for my book, which is moving along. Looks to be an interesting year ahead. No boredom in sight. Stay well.

  3. Emilie LaBuda says:

    Hello there Mr. Garte! I just have a question regarding the claims that the media, Smithsonian, elite, etc are hiding or disposing of these bones that are supposedly the “nephilim.” These conspiracy theorists are claiming that these bones are being hidden because it will mess up the theory of Human Evolution and that everything we know about our ancestors (Homo Sapien, Neanderthals, Denisovan, etc) is going to be “proven wrong” and we are actually Hybrids of these “Nephilim.” You have done tons of research in evolution of course and I assume you can call BS on these claims that Human Evolution as we have evidence of is “totally a fraud.” Even if we really had these Nephilim creatures mate with humans or whatever the story was It still wouldn’t disprove what we know of our roots right? Thank you so much for reading, blessings to your family!

  4. dgilmanjm says:

    This comment box just appeared. Hello Sy! Glad to find you again. I am now following your blog.

  5. dgilmanjm says:

    I find it interesting that there are similarities in the path we have followed. The major difference is that I was brought up theist, saw the contradictions, became agnostic because atheism, to me, was illogical because it required me to believe stuff that were contradicted by actual observations. Saw the evidence that life on this planet did not come about by natural causes (Paper by Dr. Stanley Miller). Saw the evidence (in a lecture by Stephen Hawkin) that the entire universe is an artifact, then got caught in the same dilemma! Science almost never identifies the one responsible; it does not specifically says who is responsible. It only says that it was all the deliberate act of an entity. (You will note that I don’t necessarily just swallow down the expert’s opinion, but draw my own conclusion based on the evidence he presents)

    Like you have discovered also, science does not provide the answers. For me, it was the fact that the bible contains stuff no human could have possibly known to be true at the time of its writing. Identifying which religion to follow took years and repeated readings of the bible.

  6. dgilmanjm says:

    “I still saw the contradictions, but now they appeared as evidence for truth, the kind of differences one would expect in true eyewitness accounts.” Sound like you read “The testimony of the Evangelists” by Prof. Simon Greenleaf. I read it! Prof. Greenleaf was a law professor who abandoned atheism after accepting a challenge to examine them using his legal expert mind to evaluate them as evidence.!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s