Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Neo-Scholastic]

Mr. Hanky, with all due respect and not trying to be insulting, you really must choose your words more carefully to better express your thoughts. It would also help if you attend to why others choose to use the words they use, not only in their everyday conventional definitions but also as they are used in particular fields. ‘Nature’ has different connotations depending, for example, on whether someone is talking about biology or physics or philosophy. That is the meaning of a ‘term of art’. It’s not as you suppose a specific reference to aesthetics when you said:

I believe that you believe it's art, but when you challenge a scientific idea, art need not apply.

Next,

If you dispute that nature and reality are different, then instead of going apeshit with insults when we disagree you should 1. Not do anything until you've taken another hard look at your position, considering why you believe it's correct and 2. If you still hold the same position after Step 1, then give us a reason why anyone, including the skeptics (not the few special snowflakes who are so enlightened above us because they had an "experience") should believe it too.

Ummm, yeah. I only made one insult in passing. I called Camus Lady stupid after she took disproportionate offense to the previous comments of theists and told them to leave AF. I stand by it. Her getting “all riled up” is her problem. My comments have been quite restrained. There is nothing personal about the idea that some ‘notions’ are inane. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. There is no condensation in telling someone that they are ignorant of certain facts. Everyone is ignorant of something. That’s different from stupid.

The fair minded people on AF know that I have thought extensively about these problems and provide relatively comprehensive and carefully crafted posts. That doesn’t mean I must reach the same conclusions as you or any other person.

Q: What have circles, rectangles, and other mathematical realities ever meant to species other than Homo Sapiens?
A: Nothing - when they come upon or are confronted by an object, a body, or other life form, most species don't need to describe it, therefore they don't need to call it one thing or another

You present a non-sequitor. Only humans have intellect, so of course they can recognize and describe things of which other animals are oblivious.

...it's shape and other mathematical figures which characterize it are strictly human constructs which we created in order to help us sort out the disparate realities which we are capable of perceiving.

Whether mathematical objects are invented human constructs or actually discovered by people is the question at hand. You can assert that they are human constructs but that does not dispel the legitimate challenges to that position, which are several.

if I draw this circle on paper with a pencil, and you say that isn't natural, well you would be making at best a subjective argument.

Actually, that is the opposite of my position. A circle drawn on paper isn’t a truly perfect circle and neither is a cookie or a bicycle wheel. Yet people can rightly say that each instantiates the form of circularity to various degrees of perfection. Circularity is not a truly subjective concept. I say that the idea of circularity is objective because circles are objects that can be identified independently by various observers. If it circularity was only an empirically derived concept known only by abstraction then values like pi would only be approximate. Moreover, I say that the value of pi is the value of pi even when no one is around to know of it. That is why I say that the type of radical empiricism some atheists advocate ignores its own precommitments about what is real.