profound impact on me, as I know it's had on you. Maybe the best way for me to approach this subject and to try to penetrate it from a perspective that does resonate with me is to do so via a critique. And that would be a critique of the mainstream materialist or materialist atheist or materialist secularist view that science has anything definitive to say at all about the ontological nature of the world and the nature of our own existence. This is a view, the view that science can give us answers about these sort of foundational truths that I have long rejected, and it's one area where Ian McGillchrist's framework works so beautifully, because while science can help us build models of the world that we can use to make predictions and exercise power over it, it cannot tell us who we are. It certainly cannot speak to the mystery of existence or to the nature of reality, and certainly it cannot say anything about the existence of God. So I'm curious how you would answer the assertion or (21/57)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: