"According to the Global Evangelization Movement, 85 percent of the population of the world believe in, and worship, some sort of God. And I am not ashamed to count myself among this 85 percent that recognize there exists some power higher and better, than themselves. But in environments where there are many intellectuals (such as our fine University) one will always find an abundance of persons who do not believe in any God. It is, of course, the right of such people to do so. However, I suspect they do not believe in God not because of any ethical or logical conviction, but from a simple wish to feel intellectually superior to the 85 percent of the world that does believe in a higher power. A little bit of logic, or a little bit of wisdom, is dangerous. Young people, with good solid minds but almost no experience of the world, analyze the question of the existence of God and draw conclusions that are contrary to the experience and lifetimes of speculation of millions of persons far older and wiser than they. It seems to me unlikely that any undergraduate student is likely to formulate any arguments against the existence of God that did not occur to such geniuses as Aristotle, Rene Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton, all of whom believed in him. But I am not implying, of course, that one should not think for oneself. I only stress that one ought to consider that if there are arguments against the existence of God, there are arguments for his existence, too. In the first place, let us consider that it is a principle of the universe to proceed towards a state of maximum chaos. This is a scientific law (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and also holds true in practical experience. When you don't clean your room every day, it becomes gradually messier and messier, until after a week or so it is a disgusting place, with the trash can overflowing and clothes strewn everywhere, such that it disgusts and depresses you even to enter. But when you take a walk out in the woods, everything is fine and uncluttered, exactly as it should be. And even if there is clutter, a fallen tree, say, there is beauty in it. There is none of the disorder and aesthetic disgust which one finds in the world of man. And yet we do not expect, physically, nature to be naturally aesthetically pleasing; on the contrary, we expect it to have grown more disorganized and cluttered as time went on. A forest should, by all rights, be filthier than anybody's room. That a forest, or a canyon, is beautiful, implies that somebody has, in some sense, organized it; and since no man was responsible for this organization, we must (unless we will suppose that aliens came to Earth and organized everything) presume that GOD is responsible for the natural harmony and beauty of the world. Another excellent reason to believe in a benevolent god is that the world has grown kinder, rather than crueler, throughout history. Torture is no longer practiced in any but a few countries; kings no longer wage war for sport (except perhaps our own); and indeed, when a natural disaster befell the people of Indonesia a few weeks ago, nearly the entire planet sprang to their aid. But why should we care what happens to anybody else? There is no logical, rational reason for it. And since there are no logical grounds for morality, we can only presume that it comes from some greater idea, which lies outside the bounds of logic. And if we believe in something greater, we have, effectively, believed in God. The strongest reason to believe in God is not, like these preceding arguments, rational. It is simply that when you speak to him (or her; I do not presume to know God's gender, though I suspect the question has no meaning), you feel a happiness, a joy that comes from outside yourself, a feeling comparable to being in love. So the only conclusions are that God hears you and is sending you love or your mind is releasing endorphins into your system and tricking you into believing that God is responsible for the happiness they produce. But if this second choice were the case -- if the love of God one experiences through prayer were just a psychological illusion, then could one not get the same joy out of worshipping a rock, or a pencil? It should not make any difference what one prays to, so long as one prays honestly. And yet it is just not satisfying, to pray your troubles to a rock, and beg it for guidance. The happy feeling of prayer only comes when you address God, or nature, or some other suitably high force. I pray to God often, and am certainly happier for it. Now, no doubt a lot of atheists and agnostics are reading this article and cringing, thinking that the author is weak-minded or gullible, and requires imaginary support for his fragile ego in a cold, meaningless world. And perhaps they are right (I know I am gullible). But I ask, in any case, what is the point of believing in a cold, dry universe, devoid of all meaning? What good could it possibly do anyone to believe in that? If your goal is to be happy, you might as well try believing in God; it can hurt nobody, and might do you a world of good. Indeed, atheists who vocally condemn religious persons as weak-minded are only trying to bolster their own egos and convince themselves that they are superior to everyone around them. I suggest that prayer, and an opening up to God, are far more efficient and worthy means of gaining happiness, than entertaining in one's mind a false feeling of superiority toward the rest of the world.