why not err on the safe side?

Some atheists pooh-pooh the idea that there is a higher being, a heaven, or a hell because there is no scientific evidence for such things.

So let's take the flip side: if science says it is so, does it make it true? There was a time when science proved that women are intellectually inferior, that they are incapable of growing intellectually beyond a young girl's intellect. Okay, so that was flawed science. Until just a few years ago, science believed that dogs cannot see colors. They've since changed that position, saying that dogs can see colors, but not as well as humans do. Bottom line: science can be flawed.

Now to go with the science as positive evidence, I say that just because you don't perceive or understand it doesn't mean "it" doesn't exist. As far as my dog is concerned, heartworms don't exist in his world: he never sees one and he'll never understand what a heartworm is or does.

I love the observation "your God is too small." Anyone who expects to be able to wrap their mind around God is suffering from the "your God is too small" syndrome.

I wonder if the people who demand evidence of a higher being to their satisfaction also demand evidence for everything else. Do they demand proof that you were where you said you were: I've been at the store. Look here are groceries. I was at pool hall. Look, here is the receipt. I didn't go anywhere this afternoon; I was at home taking a nap. Here's the video.

Why not err on the safe side? It's not going to be awkward to face God eventually and say, "Uh, I thought you didn't exist." Now if God didn't exist but you believed He did, the only consequence is a life lived in faith, hope and love.