G'day, Trav... I'd be more inclined towards your analysis if the title had been, "42 a poor alternative to the epistemology of the questions of meaning" - but it wasn't.

Maybe I just regard it as disingenuous to question meaning, having supplied The Answer.

I prefer Gracie Allen's approach to following your heart:

‘I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best.’

Within spatio-temporal parameters of cognition I concur with Pericles here:
<< The very idea of a "purpose", other than to lead a good and happy life, simply disintegrates under the sheer bigness of space. >>

And if we limit “belief” to a matter of propositional logic I again concur with him here:
<< Believing opposites would be considered to be the acceptance of conflicting views, but of course that is logically impossible, and anyone who both believes and not-believes the same thing would be considered unbalanced. >>

Human consciousness is not, however, founded solely on spatio-temporal perception and logical judgement. Those two faculties are invaluable as the basis for the great scientific and technological advances of the last few centuries. But questions about the “purpose” or “meaning” of life arise from consciousness that also admits two other functions: the type of perception which is not spatio-temporal; and judgement which, while reliable, is not based on logic.

Perhaps that is what Mark Christensen is getting at in the concluding paragraph of his article:
<< Want reason to reign? Want pointless hostilities to cease and for people to feel the truth within? Then admit reason is at its best when we acknowledge it's ultimately useless. >>

When it comes to dealing with the question of “the meaning of life” reason in the form of logical empiricism, while perhaps not completely useless, is inadequate .

We need to move towards a better conceptual framework for the understanding of consciousness. This will require the admission of subjective reality.

Mark, I’m sorry but you lost me with your sub heading.

“Atheism is busy framing the answers, but it doesn't understand what the question is”.

Perhaps I’m just the wrong sort of atheist as my view of things is that we are just one of the known 4.2 million biological species on this planet. No atheist left to get on with their own lives has either a question in relation to these matters, or is trying to frame answers. We are not interested, not buying and utterly ambivalent.

It is religious theology that is so insecure about its faith that is needs to be constantly challenged to boost the “faith”. That’s how religion works, get it?

The great debate is a theological fabrication designed to “provoke” a challenge from atheists in order that the proof through your “answers” can get more and more complex. The more complex your answers, the less believable you are. That my fine feathered friend is the point you are missing.

You have a need for answers because you are so insecure, atheists don’t need answers and they especially can’t be bothered with questions. Go figure.

There are times when I consider that these sorts of debates are actually very positive, despite the presence of intractable positions on both sides.

Reason being, is that some amongst those of the religious persuasion are attempting to come to terms with their detractors, and vice versa.

In that, I hope that there are some who wish to grow/evolve and learn further, as I believe that that is a very good thing.

That's all a bit unhelpful, crabsy. Needs a bit more work, I feel.

>>Human consciousness is not, however, founded solely on spatio-temporal perception and logical judgement... [but] admits two other functions: the type of perception which is not spatio-temporal; and judgement which, while reliable, is not based on logic<<

It would help is you could describe a consciousness that is not spatio-temporal, in terms other than that it is merely "not spatio-temporal". If "not spatio-temporal", then... what? Is it in fact discernible at all, given that it does not involve time, or space? I suspect you may be talking in riddles, simply in order to dodge the question, yes?

Also, on what is a judgment that is not based on logic, based? Imagination? On-the-spot invention? Surely, that is far too loose and unpredictable to be a valid basis upon which to form a judgment? It would certainly allow for spontaneity and surprise, but is hardly much of a foundation for a useful life, is it? It definitely doesn't sound "reliable", in any normal definition of reliable, that's for sure.

Introducing subjective reality doesn't help much either.

"We need to move towards a better conceptual framework for the understanding of consciousness. This will require the admission of subjective reality."

SR has been around in a number of guises for many generations. I was hooked on it in the sixties, when I started to understand where Sartre was coming from (I've forgotten it all now, of course, it was just a teenage fad), and while a lot of fun, doesn't actually help much. It's a bit of a cop-out, really, just another way of saying "I don't understand the 'why' of our existence, so I'll describe it in a clever way that cannot be disproven"

Life has no "meaning", except that which we, individually, choose to give it.

"The flip-side, of course, is that partisan treatment of religious supposition in the public square and school system – Darwin is taught exclusively because only science provides Answers – and atheistic counter-proselytizing – you stupid idiot, there is no God – is, in the end, profoundly prejudicial to the stated objective of human enlightenment."

This article lets itself down by being hyper-emotive and just plain misrepresenting the truth. A common factor on this issue.

The fact is your premise that 'there is no God' is being taught in schools is false. You are perhaps deliberately misrepresenting the secularists debate about religion in schools.

I understand in this debate many theists react strongly, protecting their once powerful patch. Losing the ability to influence children may be seen as a threat and quite frankly the reactions by some theists on this issue have hardly been conducted with honesty; nor in line with Christian principles and values which are shared by humans of all persuasions.

It is proselytising and that is at the centre of debate. I have heard no secular group arguing that atheism should be 'taught' in schools and that God should be declared as non-existent. Indeed religion is still taught as a broader (non-proselytising) interesting topic as part of social science and history.

As always, these are matters for families to decide not some dictatorial government controlled program for public schools whether it be pushing atheism or religion.

Why not let people decide for themselves and then to feel confident in one's own choices without the need to demonise atheists or theists (whichever the shoe fits).