Replies

But I think our friend Filo has not quite thought this all through yet. Maybe he will some day.

Oh I very much have, and clearly more deeply than you have.

The difference is that I don't need any reassurance for our insignificance in the universe. For the fact that I'm a "meat machine."

You do.

And, for the most part, that's okay.

I've never had any qualms with those who seek out religion to answer those types of questions, to bring meaning to their personal lives.

It's when they push beyond those boundaries to defy logic and reason and to declare that clearly correct science is not correct just because it runs counter to what their pastor pounded into their malleable minds at age 8.

At that point religion goes from a comfort to an abomination.

It's when they push beyond those boundaries to defy logic and reason and to declare that clearly correct science is not correct just because it runs counter to what their pastor pounded into their malleable minds at age 8.

"Logos" is the epistemological root of the word "logic." Without the absolute Logos, logic and reason itself would be impossible. Which evidently is a point you wish to demonstrate for us.

BTW FWIW, I did not get anything pounded into my head by clergy in my childhood. I had no religious instruction to speak of when I was a child; I was never confirmed into any religion as child. (My Father is a Deist and wouldn't permit it.) My theological perspective is based on God's four revelations: Holy Scripture, the Incarnation, the Book of Creation (the natural world), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I discovered the four seamlessly dovetail on all levels and mutually agree.

Recognizing this, at that point in my life (a couple decades ago), I accepted Jesus Christ — the Son of God, the Word, Logos of the Beginning, the Alpha–Omega, and final Judge of all things and especially of souls — as my savior and redeemer.

You keep insisting that the materialist/naturalist/physicalist point of view yields "clearly correct science." Okay. I'll agree with your statement provided you concur that science limits itself to such things as are material and physical. Which is what its method is supposed to do.

But there are many things "in heaven and earth" that do not and cannot fall within the range of direct scientific observation. Do you think things do not exist unless they are amenable to scientific analysis? In other words, that the (strictly self-limited) scientific method is the touchstone or criterion of what it means for something to be "real?"

But since we're just a bunch of meat machines, a random bunch of chemicals with no meaning and purpose in life, what you have said is meaningless as well. That is simply your opinion and it shouldn't matter whether someone disagrees with you or not. So why are evos so intent on making everyone believe as they do and why do they get so bent out of shape when someone doesn't? In a meaningless purposeless universe, opinions don't matter, truth doesn't matter, morals don't matter. There is no truth, no significance, no reason, no logic, no abmoninations, no clearly correct science, no clearly correct anything.

But just for kicks, addressing your comment....

How is that any different than the evolution pounded into the malleable minds of 8 year olds in the public school system.

Clearly correct science? What would that be? What science hasn't adjusted, tweaked, revised, as *new data comes in*? Any changes that have been made are presumably made to change something that was wrong. So there never is, nor can there ever be, *clearly correct science*.

*Logic* and *reason* are constructs of the human mind and so subject to human failings. Believing that logic and reason can provide all the answers and result in reliable interpretation of the information about the world around us, is religious in nature. They have been elevated to the level of confidence that Christians have in Scripture, thus making faith in them quite a religious act.