It is interesting that C S Lewis foresaw the convergence of science and mysticism and discussed the critical implications this has for us https://thereluctantsamizda...

Science is a very helpful, but limited, way of studying the world. Eastern philosophers question the way it splits reality into subject and object, the way it violates reality. Western deconstruction folks question this too. As do phenomenologists and existentialists. And many social scientists question the over-application of physics to psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. All may be subatomic particles, but these particles within organisms are no longer each one random and determined by principles of physics alone; they function in the service of the organism. Science is a bit too digital, quantitative, to adequately describe and predict human functioning, which is more analogue, qualitative.

My main point was the artificial subject-object split that objectifies and quantifies, thus leaving out a significant portion of reality, where we humans live and function. Of course Christianity cannot address dilemmas raised by modern science. Nor can science address reality experienced and lived outside of the subject-object perspective.

And forgetting Christianity, look at Eastern philosophies and religions that caution against relying totally on a third-person, divisive outlook. Husserl also cautioned against relying totally on formal empiricism; he favored a more direct approach to reality. The deconstructionists point to science's reliance on language which is always imprecise. They also note the (sometimes exploitive) power of a subject-object perspective. Science disturbs, in order to observe, reality. Thus it has limitations.

Striker-

Why not a truth-seeking check and balance? From the rational, empirical, existential, and theological points of view... I find myself pulled in all those directions.

Great points!

As someone pulled towards the rational, empirical, and existential schools of thought, I couldn't agree more.

I'm afraid you're right; this doesn't really satisfy me as a skeptic. It just comes across as one long argument from incredulity, rather than anything that might be convincing.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Another perspective I've been attracted to recently has been the more classical perspective on theism (from the Aquinas school adopted from Aristotle) on God as the necessary being of all contingency. Not a "prime mover", but the grounding of all existence, the necessary being in which all contingent thing depend.

If you're interested, a text I have enjoyed has been David Bentley Hart's "The Experience of God" - it's far from the typical "apologetics" cry

http://www.amazon.com/The-E...

Can't say I've never heard such an argument before, I'm afraid. They always start with postulates I just usually can't agree to; expectations I see no evidence for. They usually claim the mundane to be impossible without the supernatural and I just never see why that is.

A more existential way of approaching the question would be to consider the topic of transcendence, beauty, bliss, consciousness, morality, etc. Is there some irreducible about these properties? This is something I've been very attracted to lately - it's not so much an analytic argument, more the experience of the divine as source of this transcendence.

I'll have to search this out -- Polkinghorne is always a treat. I'm reminded, reading this of some late night discussions -- for example (1) Molianism and Spooky Action at a Distance, (2) the Ascension and additional physical dimensions in String Theory, and (3) exploring the three persons of the Trinity via analogy of mathematical rendering and how a Cartesian plane 'views' the breakthrough of a polytope or tesseract depending on the angle or point of entry -- wherein I used math and science as a tool to prod agnostic friends curious about my faith onto their own paths towards conversion (I'm now the godfather of one convert chemist's son!)