Hey, it was a simple question. You stated very matter-of-factly that;
So I simply asked if the science you speak of was that of the Urantia book, since I am unaware of any modern field of science that advocates the existence of spirit.
My apology. I, too, am unaware of any science that advocates the existence of spirit as that is outside the domain of science, anyway. But it is rather presumptuous to assume the
U. Book has anything at all to do my statement.
As for the rest, if you go back over the past few posts, you will see that the thrust of the argument is that religion is either the result of delusion or make-believe. In other posts, I make clear that when I speak of atheists I'm speaking generally, like saying, "Men are taller than women." By that, do I mean all men are taller than all women?
But if the critic or atheist were really interested in what religion is all about, what the religionist actually experiences, they would with open mind make their investigation from the shoes of the religionist. Read
The Impersonal Life, for example, and try to experience what the experiencer is experiencing. But this cannot be done with a mind that is already of the opinion that there's got to be a "logical explanation" without incorporating some version of a God-concept.
God is an
experiential reality.
Atheistic arguments almost always point to the world of things (FSM, for example). As I said in the OP, "
Religion is by no means a disclosure or experience of anything in the world of things." Those atheists that manage to get beyond the world of things, while displaying all the "sympoms" of religiousty, also "see through a glass darkly." And as the UB book says, "It matters little what
idea of the Father you may entertain [personal or impersonal] as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the
ideal of his infinite and eternal nature." But, philosophically, a religion without God is like gathering fruit without trees because you cannot have effects without causes. A religion without God is little more than an emotional ceremony. For, "You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law." (UB)