[HerrBlucher]

the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false

Absolutely! However, if the materialism is true there would be no way to know that it is true because Reason would then be invalid and merely the epiphenomenon of blind irrational forces i.e chemical reactions, eletromagnetic waves etc. Reason, in order to be valid, MUST be independent of nature. This was very clearly explained in C.S. Lewis's book "Miracles."

Clear thinking Atheists know this but just cannot give up on Atheism regardless of its glaring, in your face, falsity. So they throw tantrums instead.

[Albion Wilde]

HerrBlucher (Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)

Amen to your tagline. Seems apropos on this thread. Let the materialists argue among themselves. It "matters" not. Dust to dust.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Absolutely! However, if the materialism is true there would be no way to know that it is true because Reason would then be invalid and merely the epiphenomenon of blind irrational forces i.e chemical reactions, eletromagnetic waves etc. Reason, in order to be valid, MUST be independent of nature.

Ditto bump

[Zeneta]

Thanks for posting the source of the materialism vs. reason paradox.

[John Valentine]

Clear thinking Atheists know this but just cannot give up on Atheism regardless of its glaring, in your face, falsity. So they throw tantrums instead.

I have never witnessed an atheist tantrum. On the other hand theist tantrums are on display in every interaction, as here: "...cannot give up on Atheism regardless of its glaring, in your face, falsity."

You think something is false, fine, but in no way is the non-theistic world view glaringly false. If it were, it would not have so many intelligent, considered adherents. If you think it is false, it is up to you to put forward some convincing arguments in support, otherwise it is nothing more than a figurative stamping of feet. And, as Nagel says, “there is really no reason to assume that the only alternative to an evolutionary explanation of everything is a religious one.”

Here is a real insight few on either side of the divide will find comfort in.

[John Valentine]

After correctly rejecting blind reductionism, you offer this unsupported conclusion: "Reason, in order to be valid, MUST be independent of nature."

Not so! Reason is and must be part of any necessary and sufficient definition of Nature.

Nature is far grander and more wonderful than your absurd caricature of it.

I find nothing whatsoever either original or compelling in your post.