Replies

If one begins with simple axioms and builds a conceptual structure that demonstrably corresponds with significant and complex aspects of reality, I would say that that is sufficient proof that truth exists and that we have some means to apprehend it. All of science presumes the Universe is orderly and proceeds to discern it. The effort has been hugely successful.

The origin of that order is, however, not touched by Science's means. One may assume the obvious, as has the vast bulk of humanity, that there is an omnipotent intelligence behind (within?) the Universe.

There is, as well, a non-rational or emotional element to the discernment of truth, much ignored by the scientists, and that is monumentally significant flashes of insight, in which incredibly complex mathematical structures come fully formed to mind, to be later laboriously deconstructed and made accessible. They "intrude" with incredible force upon the lives of the individuals experiencing them. Both Poincare and Nash are examples (now reading A Beautiful Mind).

To assume life is pointless because we cannot conceive of some or many of the deeper aspects of reality sells both God and Man short. Our limitations do not define God but we are not without some siginificant capacity.

My 2 cents ...

Our limitations do not define God

This is important and I'm glad you mention it.

We could say it another way: God or any other extra-mental object of knowledge exists independently of our knowing and therefore it's existence is not determined by the act of knowing, even though our mode of knowing is a limiting feature.

Unless we deny this independence, it is not for us to decide, by the character of knowing, what exists and doesn't. No is it our responsibility to determine the nature of its existence.

I have re-read your post twice now, and I cannot find anything of substance to disagree with. Which may seem strange ;)

One may assume the obvious, as has the vast bulk of humanity, that there is an omnipotent intelligence behind (within?) the Universe.

I tend to think "behind" rather than "within". But I could be wrong.

There is, as well, a non-rational or emotional element to the discernment of truth, much ignored by the scientists, and that is monumentally significant flashes of insight, in which incredibly complex mathematical structures come fully formed to mind, to be later laboriously deconstructed and made accessible. They "intrude" with incredible force upon the lives of the individuals experiencing them. Both Poincare and Nash are examples (now reading A Beautiful Mind).

I don't know of any good biographies off the top of my head, but if that sort of thing interests you - and I find it interesting as well - then you should look into the life and work of Srinivasa Ramanujan. Hildegard of Bingen I can explain satisfactorily. Ramanujan presents rather more difficulty, although the fact that he was surprisingly wrong about some things makes it a bit easier. ;)