I’m either agnostic or an atheist. I grew up, confused, in a Presbyterian church in Landan’s hometown. And I would like to say I’m outstretching my peace in that I just plain disagree with you. Yes you didn’t ask for my opinion, but after all my years trying to understand Christianity and why I still couldn’t believe; these words are exactly what I what I was looking for when I was younger. Never have I observed some one with so much faith, but then again I don’t observe people at their core very often. As either agnostic or an atheist, I think you have a highly considerable argument, that honestly made me wonder about going back. And I would like to thank you for being the absolute model of a Christian, I had some bad experiences in my youth and was convinced they were rather hard to come by. You seem like a very fine fellow, I wish I knew more about science and the bible to discuss this further.

So long.

Evolutionary psychology is also apt to answer for the inherent moral behavior. People often say such things as without a logos or an originary source there can be no law. But it seems, quite rightly, that if one were to take up the philosophy and science of the idea the idea of a single Truth is not cogent. And similarly the idea that one could if one tried hard enough reach more towards some single glowing truth rather than something more organic and arising from the universe itself is perhaps heavily contested of late. I would suggest to you that the failure of logic to properly account for itself is one instance of such a failure, and similarly the idea of special and general relativity.

It becomes difficult, once one moves away from standard and traditional systems of valuations to even understand what Christianity is speaking about. It becomes senseless only because one cannot understand the grounds upon which it is founded. For example, the idea of someone wholly God and wholly man defies the law of bi-valence, and the trinity seems to intuitively defy certain intuitions we have about the ontology of objects, and lastly an immaterial world the idea of causation, and causal closure.

However, in order to answer these claims it is likely that one would have to first embrace them which is an abomination perhaps of just what it is to be a Christian. And so sadly it is unlikely that a strong force of assent can be heard in post-modern philosophy.

The only reason I would as an individual seek to inquire with fervor is to understand the universe. If there is not a God than it is a must, and necessary for movement, and if there is one then perhaps we are being well rounded by doing so. And however uncertain any inquiry might be, and however “not quite right” it comes out being over time, we find that a definite aspect of inquiry is the rejection of a transcendent logos. Perhaps at some point in time inquiry will reach a point at which it finds itself in need of and by its own arguments predicating a God, but at the moment it seems we have only the information which is readily and as rigorously as possible available with which to make our decision, and the outlook is not favorable.

After all of that I’m favorable to spirituality. I think its great and necessary in many respects but to me it seems that the level of discourse is such of much apologetics that it cannot say anything of value or real clout to anyone seriously atheistic. The militant atheists will never be reach because they are fighting against something else entirely but those which truly seek answers are likely to listen to any reasonable discourse and though may not be converted at least may be more sympathetic.