There are several major with the position here taken by wafflehead and also another poster on this forum who cannot be debated or questioned.
The first is that , taking advocacy of rationalism and science to its logical conclusion runs the risk of scientism.
Science as an idiology instead of an objective method for evaluating and improving the natural world.
I see Whereu s point of view is closer to this than the other two which is closer to science than the othe two ideologies . The fact he is pre pared to say he dosent know,but has a very heavy bias towards naturalistic processes and pretty much 99% discounts a God.
The society that the above opinions imo seeks to create a society in which every aspect of life ,not just technology,medicine and so on ,is assessed and governed by science .
However,as very few people have either the time or the inclination to keep up to date with cutting edge science ,they would have to take the pronouncements of scientists trust or faith .
Which is exactly how priests rose to power,by claiming an exclusive insight into Gods laws beyond the reach of the ordinary people.
Science has by these idiologies become the new priesthood and scientism has become the new religion .
More importantly ,as demonstrated on this forum daily by the inherent s of this belief,it seems to me that a sweeping dismissal of anything remotely spiritual or mystic as l actually ignores a major part of what it is to be human.
Your Mannys,dbts,candids,coppobods schools of thought fail to distinguish between on one hand ,the religous impulse that is innate to human beings,and on the other ,the systems of authority and control that the organised religion s have become.
The debate if you call it that is almost always portrayed with just two alternatives,scientific atheism and organised ,dogmatic religion.
The point im trying to make here,is there has never been a culture from say rainforest tribes to the greatest civilisations such as Rome,ancient Egypt or even our modern western world ,which did not begin with an understanding based on a belief and understanding of the world based on that the world they see,is purposeful,meaningful.
Arising from a supernatural ordering of things,it and everyt5in it,are here for a reason,this way of looking at things is not learned but instinctive . ..it comes naturally to the individual,and this yearning for something more transcendental is not rooted in organised religion,they and their priesthoods try to and do exploit these human impulses,but they did not create ot.
