A brilliant atheist neuroscientist sits on a university stage with a brilliant Christian mathematician, and for a moment, the discussion shines brightly on the reality of God.

It is the point at which the neuroscientist seems to drop his debate hat to share something bothering him at the very depths — a cry of the heart.

“You know, honestly, I would love if there were a caring God who would judge Hitler and make him burn in hell forever,” he said. “I would love it if people wouldn’t have to suffer, apparently, pointlessly.”

And yet, he contended, “Wishing something were true doesn’t necessarily make it true.”

We must be skeptical, he affirmed, of such yearnings, given that “we’re prone to self-delusion.”

The mathematician then takes a stab at it, granting that just because something is comforting doesn’t mean it’s true, but it also doesn’t mean it’s false, and that the very desire should at least make us pause before dismissing it as wishful thinking.

Many atheists, he contended, find comfort in their position as well, because in atheism, there’s no need to appeal to a divine judge for accountability for one’s actions.

In other words, the argument swings both ways.

The mathematician referenced C.S. Lewis, an atheist convert to Christianity, who once posited that while our desire for something doesn’t make it true or false, if we find ourselves thirsting, “It would be very strange to have that experience in a universe where there was no water.”

The premise of C.S. Lewis’s conclusion is that every natural desire we have points to something real that satisfies it. So if we have a deep ache for justice, as the neuroscientist conveyed, perhaps that ache isn’t an accident, a delusion, but pointing to something real.

The mathematician concluded that while the neuroscientist’s basic contention is true, it may be only partly so; that if we have a yearning for something to be true, in which we are “responding to something very deep within” ourselves, “that may be an indicator that it actually is true.” The question would then be, “Is there evidence that it’s true?”

He gave the neuroscientist a point in that Christians haven’t always followed their own leader’s admonitions. “We need to be very critical of what our belief system actually teaches.”

Then he added that a poor example by some should not make the essence, the core, untrue.

He believes in Christ, he said, not simply because it’s comforting, but because of the Resurrection, which provides evidence that Jesus is God.

The abovementioned debate, along with commentary, is laid out briefly in a YouTube clip representing a portion of a much larger discussion, “Making Sense of the Universe,” between neuroscientist Peter Ulric Tse and mathematician John Lennox that took place at Dartmouth University in October 2014.

These kinds of discussions are important. The more precisely we understand the disagreements to our faith, the better we can engage honestly, fairly and confidently.

Salonen is a freelance writer, speaker, and host of the “Matters of Soul Importance” podcast. She can be reached at roxanebsalonen@gmail.com or roxanesalonen.com.