The only absurdity here is the article, which would replace inconvenient science with convenient metaphysics?

Which is what you get when you replace logic and reason with dogma and ideology!

Nor can one separate the immutable law of cause and effect. i.e., a stone thrown into a still pond will always create ripples, that go on and on until they reach the shoreline.

Or that everything in the known universe is energy in one transformed form or another.
Or that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, merely transformed; meaning, all that we now see as transformed energy, as the known or knowable universe, had to exist in another form, before it became the universe? Dark matter?

Today's Archaeologists are finding increasing evidence of the presumption, that the exodus probably din't occur.

Bringing into question a whole series of possible fables, including the parting of the seas, manna from heaven, the 14 commandments handed to a myth from a burning bush, written in a language 99% of the populace couldn't read.

Because regardless of the language, they were for the most part, entirely illiterate, and conveyed all their fables via their oral history; which has been seriously embellished as it seems, was the then custom, when this or that inconvenient fact disturbed the story, or rendered it entirely nonsensical/without foundation/contradictory/fabricated!?

If I were to start a brand new religion, it would be based on indisputable fact and science, which in no way could be misrepresented by ideologues, merely placing derogatory labels on it!

As their only recourse to being confounded by the increasing emergence of factual data!
Rhrosty.

I suggest you go back and read the article again, Rhrosty.

Sells, when are you going to stop writing all this BS.
David

David,
It is not often that I get such informed comment! You have obviously grabbled with the issues, read deeply, thought long to produce such an inspiring comment. I really admire the sort of intellectual involvement with readers of my posts that yours represents. In answer to your question, when they carry me out in a box.

"But as useful as the sciences are they will not tell me who I am or what my life might mean. They will not tell me why my wife loves me even when I am unlovable. They will not tell me why one painting reaches an understanding with my intellect and desire and why others leave me cold."

Why do you feel the need to know these things? Life is meant to be lived - not analysed. People who have the time to ask these questions are obviously not living their lives to the full. Why do you need to know who you are? Aren't you content with the fact that you just are? Why do you need to know what life means? What difference would it make? You are living and that is all you need to know. Why do you need to tell us that you are sometimes unlovable - is this a cry for help? Why do you need to know why one painting effects you and another does not? Can't you just enter into the experience of interacting with things without needing to question? All the while you are questioning you are not living and that is sad.

People who claim to be philosophical or metaphysical or theological are not searching for answers to life's big questions. They are searching for the answers as to why they feel the way they do. Why am I sad or angry or frightened or guilty? These are the real questions behind their intellectual posturing. That posturing becomes a drug that numbs them from the reality of the pain they feel in their bodies and which can be measured by science as stress and anxiety.

You ask all the wrong questions. You are merely trying to create an environment where you can feed the need to numb yourself from the reality of what is going on in your body.

"The reason that science cannot give us a complete description of reality is that it is, by its nature, quantitative. Physics can only capture those aspects of reality that are "susceptible of the prediction and control of characteristics of quantifiable phenomena." "

I am sorry all of reality is quantitative. If there is no possibility of measuring something, it does not exist.

Scientism itself is an invention that caricatures what science does. Scientific inquiry determines the likely correctness of hypotheses and that is how we are able to accurately know the real world. That does not tell us what to do with that information. Science also does not replace imagination and art as means of expression and enjoyment. It might tell us why we enjoy things.

The caricature of science presented in this essay is merely an excuse to hold on to religion.