Oh no not another free will thread.

[LadyForCamus]

Your second level is nonsense.  Which is fine.  There's nothing wrong with pondering things.  But it carries 0 weight.  So you using it as an escape hatch to get out of a position you don't like is theistic.

Objective world outside of science?  Can you word the question more clearly.  What constitutes 'inside of science.'

Is it that you just don’t understand him?  Science is the most accurate tool that we presently have to build working models of the physical world as we experience it, but science is still contingent upon human experience.  There may be aspects of reality that we, as temporal and experiential beings, simply can never have access to.  

Example: It may be a fact that there is a difference between a rock, and the human experience of a rock.  But if there is, we have no way of knowing.  We can’t leave our subjective experience.

Hammy’s position (and mine) is simply the philosophical acknowledgement that science is objective within the frame work of subjective experience, and therefore we are limited in what we can know.  There is nothing supernatural or fantastical about that.  It’s actually the most intellectually honest position to take regarding epistemology, IMO.  And, it in no way undermines the value science. There are no mutually exclusive ideas here.  Science and philosophy can cooperate with one another.