I’m seriously SO SORRY that your experiences with Christians have shaped this opinion of yours… there is clearly a lot of history, and pain, in that statement. I wish that I could undo that somehow, but unfortunately I can’t.

All I can say is this:
The way I read my Bible, that’s not what God’s about at all. He doesn’t have arbitrary rules that are unknown to people, and then eternally punishes them for not following them. He created this amazing perfect world, and all of us, but it unfortunately got botched up along the way when we decided that we could figure stuff out better on our own, and that we didn’t need God. But He’s been continually seeking after us all, to join Him in making the world a beautiful place again; to put things back to the way they were always supposed to be…

It’s not so much “Do this and that, or else you’re going to a bad place when you die” as it is “This place is pretty messed up right now, don’t you want to be a part of the solution here and now, and work alongside a God that cares deeply for you and for everyone and for the whole universe?”

I hope that in some way, this helps you see that not everyone believes the same narrow, fatalistic explanations of Christianity that you have unfortunately been told…

I will end by syaing that we will not see eye-to-eye on this. I still hold by my claim that “science cannot, and does not, provide ample explanation for things such as life’s purpose or God”…because well, it just really doesn’t.

God Bless,
-Justin

Since our utterances and writings are part of the physical world, anything we can talk or write about must necessarily impinge on the physical world at some point. There is no “perhaps”.

If it still isn’t clear, then try reading the essay I recommended in a previous comment.

Even faith in a God doesn’t answer those questions either.

Does it impinge on the physical world? Perhaps. However, if it doesn’t, then it doesnt make theological/philosophical considerations irrelevant as I would contend the scientific method isn’t the end all of man’s methodology to understanding.

That the entities I mentioned (books, utterances, electrical impulses) differ greatly is obvious and trivial. But this “deeper” something that you want us to look at: does it impinge on the physical world or not? If so: have you considered the consequences? (i.e. it is not beyond the reach of science). If not: have you considered the consequences? (i.e. you cannot tell us anything about it, and cannot reasonably ask us to look at it).

I believe that Smith isn’t trying to say that this is a fault with science, but rather that it is a domain for theology (as Steelman indirectly concedes).

On a side note – Smith has been often asked about his views regarding the findings of science. He addresses the issue head on and has really expressed the need for both science and religion in a manner that eliminates conflict. I admit that you lose some of his earnest appreciation for the sciences when reading my post (as context is lost in general when relaying quotes).

Stephen P says, “the words we utter, the books we write, and the electrical impulses that travel telecommunications networks are all indubitably part of the physical world.”

in the most basic sense – yes that is true. But in the effort to move beyond surface considerations we should look deeper than that. It is like saying, “we are all animals on this planet” (a true statement) but everyone knows that animals differ so greatly that a broad characterization doesn’t do the animal kingdom justice.