Thanks very much Don, this is most fascinating and helpful (I think!). I am eager for your further explanations and videos on this because I have only a vague understanding of what you are saying here. I do think that you are very right about the mistake that scientists make in confusing numbers and abstracts with phenomenal experience, but I am trying to grasp what that means in terms of idealism or realism. As I’ve said, I’m more realist than idealist (I think), so I think the moon is still there whether I or any other sentient being is around to see it. Except for God. I do understand that it is my brain and everyone else’s brains that construct their own perception of the external objects like the moon, but we do have a great deal of similarity in our perceptions which suggests that either there is some amazing amount of perceptual coordinating going on, or there is something objective out there that we are subjectively experiencing in very similar ways.

As for exploring science for “proof” of God’s existence, I agree with you about the self-evident existence of God. It doesn’t seem like we can account for being without that. But, I wonder how our culture got so off track on that. Of course, it was the major thinkers coming out of the Enlightenment and science revolution that made the claim that through growing knowledge of the universe we can eliminate the idea of God. The fact that even in very secular cultures, outright atheism is relatively low shows that while the physicalist story dominates our culture, primarily in education, it has failed to drive God, spirituality, a higher power or the idea of transcendence out of the picture.

I don’t think I look to science to give warrant to my belief in God as it may appear. My own view of God is that he/she/it wishes to continue to allow freedom to choose and should he/she/it provide overwhelming proof no choice will remain. My interest in looking at science as it relates to belief is to evaluate the basis on which the physicalist evangelists (and you name several) make their false claims. It seems important to me to help expose the false basis that underlies too much our culture and individual choices.

But, I do think God has given us the mental capability to observe and explore creation and that ability provides a very significant part of our meaning and purpose. I also believe that God wants to be known (within limits I just expressed) and to be known by humans he has revealed himself through the twin books of nature and revelation. So, looking to nature and creation as an exploration into, as Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking have said, the Mind of God, is valuable –– and fun.

Thanks again, Don.