Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I Science isn't here to give meaning to existence. That's why we have philosophy. What happens to us after we die? We decompose.
*snip*
God has no evidence, therefore believing in his existence as truth is unreasonable.
|
I don't know if filtherton was headed in this direction, but these two quotes get to what I consider the heart of the matter: there is no evidence for meaning. Meaning is unreasonable by scientific standards. It may be that, in general, theistic philosophy has more useless baggage than atheistic philosophy - thank William of Occam for the seeds of that idea - but neither has its values supported by any kind of evidence. It seems like you're criticizing theism for something that is inevitable in any kind of philosophy that claims the existence of meaning.
Am I missing a key distinction?