Should we believe only in those things for which there is evidence?

[Davian]

I'll come down to this, because the rest of your argument can be read and assimilated by others, as can my answers, which I believe adequately address your points and you are starting to argue in a circular manner, which is as frustrating as it is pointless:

Originally Posted by crimsonleaf

I wouldn't try, or be particularly bothered. It's not my place to judge the depth of belief in anyone else. If someone is lying to himself and/or me then it's between him and God.
​

This is not about judging, or a god that may or may not exist. My point is, two (or more) theists don't have a mechanism that I am aware of to qualify their beliefs. You may be the the only one at your church that actually believes that "god" is more than a character in a book. And I cannot be sure about you.

I repeat, I don't care what they believe. It is between them and the God in which I believe.

But maybe you should define what it is you don't believe in. Once we've determined that then we can probably assume that we're talking about what I do believe in. If you're still struggling with what that is (and you really do appear to be struggling)

If I appear to struggle, it is with getting my point across without putting words in your mouth.

then I believe in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent first cause, defined and described in Holy Scripture and which we call God. I believe in the reality of this God and fail to see how anyone cannot accept the possibility of His existence unless they can show His impossibility.

That sounds like the "prove God doesn't exist!" argument. Are you serious?

As for the lowering of my credulity bar, my credulity of the unseen is restricted to the acceptance of it merely as a possibility, not necessarily a reality, in as such "credulity", which implies belief, is a misnomer. As for my specific belief in God, I have evidence enough to satisfy my personal needs for belief, although you may view it as self-deception.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary... personal testimony, particularly your own, might be considered very weak in this case.

My so called "God of the Gaps" comment was merely to point out that it's unreasonable to reject the concept of God (supernatural) as described above whilst not providing an alternative (natural) solution to the question relating to origins,

I don't suppose you can tell me what you mean by 'supernatural', other than to tell me what it isn't?

Of what value is the positing of the undefined and untestable in place of "I don't know"?

and you've told me you can't reject any possibility which you can't define.

You are putting words in my mouth. That is not what I said.

So now that I have defined what my belief is, you can have a pop of telling me why He doesn't exist and why He cannot remain a possibility.

From what you have provided, I gather that your "God" does exist - as a product of your imagination.

 

[crimsonleaf]

That sounds like the "prove God doesn't exist!" argument. Are you serious?

I'm getting seriously frustrated with the stupidity of your arguments so we'll make this the last of our interactions here. If you can coherently string three or four words together to make a meaningful sentence then you will agree that what I've written in no way is asking anyone to prove God either does or doesn't exist. My whole argument from the beginning is about possibilities. I even said "I believe in the reality of this God and fail to see how anyone cannot accept the possibility of His existence unless they can show His impossibility". Now what is it about that sentence that makes you think I'm asking any one to prove or disprove the actual existence of anything?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary... personal testimony, particularly your own, might be considered very weak in this case.

I agree, as I have throughout. I'm going to wave the word "possibility" at you again in the vain hope you'll see it.

I don't suppose you can tell me what you mean by 'supernatural', other than to tell me what it isn't?

I mean the same by supernatural as the rest of the world, so go and look it up. I'm not jumping through hoops for your amusement any more.

From what you have provided, I gather that your "God" does exist - as a product of your imagination.

Excellent, then we can move on. You seem to have been questioning me on a different subject to the one I've been discussing all this time. i.e. the possibility of God's existence, not the actuality of His existence. Unfortunately, until we discuss the same subject we can't, by definition, reach any agreement.

 

[Davian]

I'm getting seriously frustrated with the stupidity of your arguments so we'll make this the last of our interactions here.

Imagine my frustration at your evasions and the repeated editing of my posts to alter their intent.

If you can coherently string three or four words together to make a meaningful sentence then you will agree that what I've written in no way is asking anyone to prove God either does or doesn't exist. My whole argument from the beginning is about possibilities. I even said "I believe in the reality of this God and fail to see how anyone cannot accept the possibility of His existence unless they can show His impossibility". Now what is it about that sentence that makes you think I'm asking any one to prove or disprove the actual existence of anything?

"unless they can show His impossibility"

How would one show the impossibility of a thing that is undefined and untestable? Your sentence is coherent as a demand to prove a negative.

I agree, as I have throughout. I'm going to wave the word "possibility" at you again in the vain hope you'll see it.

I wave back, "definition".

I don't suppose you can tell me what you mean by 'supernatural', other than to tell me what it isn't?

Of what value is the positing of the undefined and untestable in place of "I don't know"?

I mean the same by supernatural as the rest of the world, so go and look it up. I'm not jumping through hoops for your amusement any more.

So that would be "no" and "none"?

Excellent, then we can move on. You seem to have been questioning me on a different subject to the one I've been discussing all this time. i.e. the possibility of God's existence, not the actuality of His existence.

One would need to first define in exact terms what was meant by "God" in both cases. I did not think you would be satisfied with your "God" being defined as "a product of your imagination."

Unfortunately, until we discuss the same subject we can't, by definition, reach any agreement.

Yes, the definition of that subject has proven to be very elusive.

 

[Ken-1122]

Many folks assert that we should not believe in anything unless there is evidence. Consider for a moment the fact that many things which all of us agree exist have certainly existed for the entire history of the universe, yet evidence for their existence only became available to humankind recently. One good example of this is light outside of the visible spectrum. It's been emitted from stars and other sources for billions of years, so it surely existed throughout the history of mankind. Yet, for most of history, there was no evidence for the existence of most types of light.

Examples could be multiplied: the atomic nucleus, distant galaxies, cellular components. All of them presented no evidence until modern technology allowed humans to perceive them.

So if people in the past chose to believe only in those things for which there is evidence, that would have lead them to incorrect conclusions. Thus it stands to reason that the same approach may lead us to incorrect conclusions today.

Now it may be reasonable to take a philosophical approach that leads us to incorrect conclusions some of the time, if we decide that no better approach is available.

What do you think?

I believe we should only believe that which has evidence to back it up. I don't think anybody should have believed your example of light outside the physical spectrum until technology allowed us the evidence to believe so

Ken

 

[madaz]

Oh yeah? What proof and evidence is there for "atheism" to be accurate and correct?

Think about it, If you lacked a belief in Zeus, what evidence would make your position accurate and correct?

if you fail to answer that question then you become a liar and hypocrite as "atheism" is not facts nor does it have facts. "atheism" is a man made myth that uses unscientific presupposition, myths("naturalism") and "assumptions.

That is psychological projection.

Also, these facts,

You really need to learn the definition of a fact before you use the word fact.

The Bible(Historical and Scientific Facts)

What scientific facts?

Jesus Christ Resurrection(Historical Fact)

What evidence of his resurrection?

The Shroud(Scientific Supernatural Fact)

Wrong. TheTurin shroud is a Hoax

Morality(Cannot Factually exist without God)

Wrong, morality can exist regardless deities.

demonic Activity(Experienced by various people with nothing to gain, NDE's and I've experienced them)

Interesting, please be kind enough to elaborate?

Dualism(Scientific Fact)

Please explain how dualism is a scientific fact?

"macro-evolution" not happening(Scientific Fact)

Please explain the scientific fact of how macro-evolution is not happening?

Intelligent Design(Scientific Fact)

Correct, as long as the designer is intelligent,physical and human.

Denying any one of these proven Facts makes you a liar and hypocrite.)

Whilst checking the definition of "fact".....check out "psychological projection" also.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why would someone believe in something if there were no evidence for said entity? I would not.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why would someone believe in something if there were no evidence for said entity? I would not.

Religious people do it all the time.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Oh yeah? What proof and evidence is there for "atheism" to be accurate and correct? if you fail to answer that question then you become a liar and hypocrite as "atheism" is not facts nor does it have facts. "atheism" is a man made myth that uses unscientific presupposition, myths("naturalism") and "assumptions.

Also, these facts,

The Bible(Historical and Scientific Facts)
Jesus Christ Resurrection(Historical Fact)
The Shroud(Scientific Supernatural Fact)
First Uncaused Cause(Scientific and Philosophical Fact)
Fine Tuning(Scientific Fact)
Morality(Cannot Factually exist without God)
demonic Activity(Experienced by various people with nothing to gain, NDE's and I've experienced them)
Dualism(Scientific Fact)
"macro-evolution" not happening(Scientific Fact)
Intelligent Design(Scientific Fact)

Denying any one of these proven Facts makes you a liar and hypocrite.

Simply calling something "fact" doesn't make it so. If you want to be taken seriously you will need to present the facts of these claims you've made.

K

 

[Elioenai26]

Religious people do it all the time.

K

I will ask you to elaborate on your above statement, if of course you care to do so, by expounding on your statement in relation to the following:

1. Who are these "religious" people you are referring to?
2. What is it that they believe without evidence?
3. What is your understanding of the words "believe", and "evidence"?
4. Do you believe that a statement must be empirically verifiable for it to be true?

I think that shall do for now.

 

[Ken-1122]

I will ask you to elaborate on your above statement, if of course you care to do so, by expounding on your statement in relation to the following:

1. Who are these "religious" people you are referring to?

Most of them are Christians that I personally know.

2. What is it that they believe without evidence?

That God exists, and that everything in the Bible is true.

3. What is your understanding of the words "believe", and "evidence"?

To believe means to be convinced of something; evidence is that which points towards belief or disbelief.

4. Do you believe that a statement must be empirically verifiable for it to be true?

No

Ken

 

[Davian]

Welcome back, Elioenai. I thought we had lost you.

I hope Ken doesn't mind, but I'll make a few comments here:

I will ask you to elaborate on your above statement, if of course you care to do so, by expounding on your statement in relation to the following:

1. Who are these "religious" people you are referring to?

Let's take yourself, as an example.

2. What is it that they believe without evidence?

In all your posts here, you never did provide evidence specifically for the deity that you claimed to exist. Even that apologetic thread that you started descended into preaching, on your part, at the end.

3. What is your understanding of the words "believe", and "evidence"?

I don't think bantering about dictionary definitions is going to get far for you, but as this is not one of the 'Christian-only' sections of this site, we should keep to scientific evidence. Demonstrable, testable, replicable.

4. Do you believe that a statement must be empirically verifiable for it to be true?

This sentence does not make sense to me. To rephrase, I would say that I believe that a statement must be falsifiable for it to be scientific, and empirically tested. "True" implies absolutes, and that is not science.

I think that shall do for now.

What of the questions that you have yet to address in those other threads? Bump them up, or sweep them under your rug?

 

[Elioenai26]

Most of them are Christians that I personally know.That God exists, and that everything in the Bible is true.To believe means to be convinced of something; evidence is that which points towards belief or disbelief.No

Ken

Since your position is representative of a increasing number of people, in particular, those who are non-religious, I will take the opportunity to address your responses here in defense of the Christian worldview.

I will begin by reviewing some of your statements as well as defining several terms that will be in common usage here.

From your posts, you maintain that most of the religious people you know whose beliefs are unsubstantiated by any type of evidence are Christians. You elaborate upon this by maintaining specifically that Christians believe God exists, and that everything in the Bible is true (by the latter, I believe you mean to be speaking of biblical inerrancy, which is the proper term). Your position is that they believe in the above without evidence.

be·lieve(b

-l

v

)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr. 1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v.intr. 1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.


ev·i·dence(

v

-d

ns)
n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

*Definitions courtesy of Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary

Ken 11-22, you maintain that a statement or assertion or position does not need to be empirically verifiable to be true. On this, we both agree; for to maintain that a statement indeed must be empirically verifiable in order to be true or credible, is itself a statement that is not empirically verifiable and therefore even on the most basic philosophical level is contradictory and therefore necessarily false.

A word before continuing...

In any quest for truth, which is what I assume you are on; honesty, sincerity, transparency, and a willingness to adapt one's worldview to truth discovered along the journey is indispensible. If along the way, one encounters some truth which runs counter to their worldview, he or she must admit that for whatever reason, their position does not correspond to the truth, amend their view to correspond with the truth, and continue along the path. To doggedly maintain one's own preconceived views in spite of the truth is to be intellectually dishonest at best, and at worst, is to engage in intentional self-deception. This applies to everyone who professes to be a seeker of truth, religious and non-religious alike.

If you take issue with any of the above, address it now. If not then I will proceed to close by stating that not only is your position representative of a great many of those who would like to see themselves as the "brights" of society, but like many of those who are atheists, you thus far have failed to offer any compelling evidence to substantiate what you would no doubt want to be taken as your "authoritative" assertions. You deliberately ignore or disregard the plethora, and I do mean plethora of books, articles, scholarly essays and works, testimonies, various research projects, and the volumes of literature produced by various well renowned, well respected Christian apologists and theologians on this very subject over a span of nearly two-thousand years. All of the above would be useful to any seeker of the validity of the Judeo-Christian claims. Not to mention the general revelation of creation itself, and paramountly, the personal revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

On one hand, you, like many others, would no doubt confess that you are in search for truth, but by your actions, demonstrate that you will only accept as truth that which neatly fits into your already preconceived atheistic framework.

To level the accusation against Christians that they have no evidence for believing what they do without any evidence yourself to substantiate your view is to completely render your whole argument void.

Why?.... Well, the simple fact is that you believe what you do without any evidence! You believe that there is no evidence in support of Christianity and yet you have no evidence to support this claim! Is not this inconsistency glaringly apparent? Is not this akin to the pot calling the kettle black?

I will not pretend to know why you maintain the position that you do. I do not know your heart. However, many atheists who later converted to Christianity have confessed that at the end of the day, their dogged clinging to an atheistic worldview was little more than an emotional response to something that they found so freightningly revealing about the nature of their own heart that they were willing to embrace any view, no matter how outlandish and unsupported it was to alleviate the having to come to terms with it. This something or rather, more correctly, this person, was the Holy, Righteous God whose standards and righteous requirements were ever present and undeniable, no matter how hard they endeavored to silence them....

 

[Davian]

<snip>
In any quest for truth, which is what I assume you are on; honesty, sincerity, transparency, and a willingness to adapt one's worldview to truth discovered along the journey is indispensible. If along the way, one encounters some truth which runs counter to their worldview, he or she must admit that for whatever reason, their position does not correspond to the truth, amend their view to correspond with the truth, and continue along the path. To doggedly maintain one's own preconceived views in spite of the truth is to be intellectually dishonest at best, and at worst, is to engage in intentional self-deception. This applies to everyone who professes to be a seeker of truth, religious and non-religious alike.

Like yourself, with your claims that you have 'the truth'.

If you take issue with any of the above, address it now. If not then I will proceed to close by stating that not only is your position representative of a great many of those who would like to see themselves as the "brights" of society, but like many of those who are atheists, you thus far have failed to offer any compelling evidence to substantiate what you would no doubt want to be taken as your "authoritative" assertions. You deliberately ignore or disregard the plethora, and I do mean plethora of books, articles, scholarly essays and works, testimonies, various research projects, and the volumes of literature produced by various well renowned, well respected Christian apologists and theologians on this very subject over a span of nearly two-thousand years. All of the above would be useful to any seeker of the validity of the Judeo-Christian claims.

Anything of scientific significance?

Not to mention the general revelation of creation itself

The cosmos is evidence of the cosmos.

, and paramountly, the personal revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Personal testimony? Is that not the weakest form of evidence?

On one hand, you, like many others, would no doubt confess that you are in search for truth, but by your actions, demonstrate that you will only accept as truth that which neatly fits into your already preconceived atheistic framework.

And yourself - will you only accept as truth that which neatly fits into your already preconceived theistic framework?

To level the accusation against Christians that they have no evidence for believing what they do without any evidence yourself to substantiate your view is to completely render your whole argument void.

Why?.... Well, the simple fact is that you believe what you do without any evidence! You believe that there is no evidence in support of Christianity and yet you have no evidence to support this claim! Is not this inconsistency glaringly apparent? Is not this akin to the pot calling the kettle black?

I will not pretend to know why you maintain the position that you do. I do not know your heart. However, many atheists who later converted to Christianity have confessed that at the end of the day, their dogged clinging to an atheistic worldview was little more than an emotional response to something that they found so freightningly revealing about the nature of their own heart that they were willing to embrace any view, no matter how outlandish and unsupported it was to alleviate the having to come to terms with it. This something or rather, more correctly, this person, was the Holy, Righteous God whose standards and righteous requirements were ever present and undeniable, no matter how hard they endeavored to silence them....

What of other atheists who simply find the claims for the existence of gods not to be credible?

 

[Ken-1122]

Since your position is representative of a increasing number of people, in particular, those who are non-religious, I will take the opportunity to address your responses here in defense of the Christian worldview.

I will begin by reviewing some of your statements as well as defining several terms that will be in common usage here.

From your posts, you maintain that most of the religious people you know whose beliefs are unsubstantiated by any type of evidence are Christians. You elaborate upon this by maintaining specifically that Christians believe God exists, and that everything in the Bible is true (by the latter, I believe you mean to be speaking of biblical inerrancy, which is the proper term). Your position is that they believe in the above without evidence.

be·lieve(b

-l

v

)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr. 1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v.intr. 1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.


ev·i·dence(

v

-d

ns)
n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

*Definitions courtesy of Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary

Ken 11-22, you maintain that a statement or assertion or position does not need to be empirically verifiable to be true. On this, we both agree; for to maintain that a statement indeed must be empirically verifiable in order to be true or credible, is itself a statement that is not empirically verifiable and therefore even on the most basic philosophical level is contradictory and therefore necessarily false.

A word before continuing...

In any quest for truth, which is what I assume you are on; honesty, sincerity, transparency, and a willingness to adapt one's worldview to truth discovered along the journey is indispensible. If along the way, one encounters some truth which runs counter to their worldview, he or she must admit that for whatever reason, their position does not correspond to the truth, amend their view to correspond with the truth, and continue along the path. To doggedly maintain one's own preconceived views in spite of the truth is to be intellectually dishonest at best, and at worst, is to engage in intentional self-deception. This applies to everyone who professes to be a seeker of truth, religious and non-religious alike.

Thus far I agree with everything you’ve said.

If you take issue with any of the above, address it now. If not then I will proceed to close by stating that not only is your position representative of a great many of those who would like to see themselves as the "brights" of society, but like many of those who are atheists, you thus far have failed to offer any compelling evidence to substantiate what you would no doubt want to be taken as your "authoritative" assertions. You deliberately ignore or disregard the plethora, and I do mean plethora of books, articles, scholarly essays and works, testimonies, various research projects, and the volumes of literature produced by various well renowned, well respected Christian apologists and theologians on this very subject over a span of nearly two-thousand years. All of the above would be useful to any seeker of the validity of the Judeo-Christian claims. Not to mention the general revelation of creation itself, and paramountly, the personal revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

No disrespect intended, but I don’t have the time (or desire) to research the thousands of years of books, articles, scholarly essays, literature, research projects, etc. etc. that pertains to Christianity. What little bit I know about Christianity, I see flaws in it and until those flaws are addressed, i cannot assume it contains all truth.

On one hand, you, like many others, would no doubt confess that you are in search for truth, but by your actions, demonstrate that you will only accept as truth that which neatly fits into your already preconceived atheistic framework.

To say I am in search for “the truth” may not be an accurate statement. Mostly because I don’t believe there is a single source that contains all truth. I have opinions on a variety of issues and I believe them to be true until proven otherwise.

To level the accusation against Christians that they have no evidence for believing what they do without any evidence yourself to substantiate your view is to completely render your whole argument void.

Actually the Christians I “level this accusation against” are probably not like you. These are the type of Christians who have no communication with the Christian God. They never read the bible, rarely go to church (except for Easter, Weddings, and Funerals) and they know less about the bible than I do yet they still call themselves Christian. The only reason they believe in God is because everyone around them does and they take their word for it. Evidence is not necessary for these people.

Why?.... Well, the simple fact is that you believe what you do without any evidence! You believe that there is no evidence in support of Christianity and yet you have no evidence to support this claim! Is not this inconsistency glaringly apparent? Is not this akin to the pot calling the kettle black?

Actually I do have evidence of this claim. It may not be enough evidence to convince you (I have no interest in convincing you of my world view) but it is definitely enough evidence to convince me.

I will not pretend to know why you maintain the position that you do. I do not know your heart. However, many atheists who later converted to Christianity have confessed that at the end of the day, their dogged clinging to an atheistic worldview was little more than an emotional response to something that they found so freightningly revealing about the nature of their own heart that they were willing to embrace any view, no matter how outlandish and unsupported it was to alleviate the having to come to terms with it. This something or rather, more correctly, this person, was the Holy, Righteous God whose standards and righteous requirements were ever present and undeniable, no matter how hard they endeavored to silence them....

Wow! Sounds like those atheists really needed help with some major issues! I wish them well with their new found world view. Obviously I don’t fit in that category.

Ken

 

[dlamberth]

Religious people do it all the time.

K

I'm not Religious in any way, shape or form. Spiritual...yes. But not "religious". With that out there, I'm also a Lover of God, so much so that every where I look, there God is. All of life provides that evidence of truth to me. The secret is in the perspective on how a person looks at life.

.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not Religious in any way, shape or form. Spiritual...yes. But not "religious". With that out there, I'm also a Lover of God, so much so that every where I look, there God is. All of life provides that evidence of truth to me. The secret is in the perspective on how a person looks at life.

.

If you are not religious, and you don't believe in God without evidence; then I was not referring to people like you.

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm not Religious in any way, shape or form. Spiritual...yes. But not "religious".

What does the word "religious" mean to you?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dlamberth]

What does the word "religious" mean to you?

Perscribed dogma, beliefs and ceremonies.

.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Am flicking through science and health a book by christian science founder mary baker eddy. She says 'mortal man has made a covenant with his eyes'. In the bible spiritual eyes are mentioned. Sense data exclusivists like behaviorists reject spirit. Stimulus and then response with no intermediary. indeed science tried to say boo to the ghost but it will not go away. Indeed it is the foundation of science. Now the ghost is accepted they want to call it a machine too. But the brain is more complex that any man can dream of, hauntingly so. And so he makes a covenant with his god, not his brain. In fact reductionism seems to exorcise the beauty of life as well as leading the understanding to strange desert lands. but man remains holy, at least to himself. And you might see this in his eyes, an external sign of internal grace. The sacrament of the look. Might this not be a peak on the "moral landscape". Something that elevates the believer when sense data fails? Of course this is not sensible thinking, but can be inwardly seen. But the denigration of matter need not follow. Indeed it is part of gods plan. As the spirit emmanates through expression in the material domain. Thus if matter can be transfigured by man it is perhaps a spiritual sign. if art deserves reverence them moreso the soul. Until that is the scientists catch up and make psychology more beautiful than art. But perhaps for some a vocabulary of renewed religion might capture that best, one where science transcends itself embarrassed at the limits of descriptive technoaracy and an objective view of the subjective domain, as if 'out there' could ever trump 'in here' without breaking a link in the reflexive chain. I mean if the brain really is that beautiful could a scientist be relied on to capture it? Thus although faith may seek understanding, understanding may also search for faith, at a sacred juncture where mythos and logos coincide. because they complement one another in a final analysis. just as an artist needs beauty in his eyes if the portrait of him is to do justice to his trade, so a scientist may turn to faith when his pen runs dry of beauty. Thus there may be an inward covenant of the outward law. A beatification of matter for science's sake, and a suspension of the technological for the sake of doing justice to beauty and to truth in a fitting matter. As you can tell i have time on my hands and am no good at equations.