Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[Neo-Scholastic]

So Ten is making an argument that if there was evidence for God then God would be part of science and not part of religion...and what he is also saying is that that other stuff that falls out of the domain of science has no practical use.

Thank you for the clarification. I can respect that position while at the same time it seems very counter-intuitive to me. Kinda of like if-the-only-tool-you-have-is-a-hammer kinda way. Most of life's experiences are outside the domain of science, such as the obligations we have to future generations and also only to ourselves, the honor we have for our ancestors, etc. The world of meaning and significance is closed to atheists, though I can tell that some of you still see the Light :-)

I mean, the "no evidence" bromide is so lame. I don't believe most of you are such sticklers about evidence for everything else in your lives. Something about other people believing in God, which is something normal and basic to many people,...something about people believing in God really bothers a "no evidence" heckler. There's a whole host of basic concepts that most normal people take for granted (like "the Past exists" and "Numbers are immaterial.") and for which there isn't the level of "evidence" equal to the one demanded by sticklers about evidence for God. Let me tell you what I consider evidence. Evidence is that which is evident. And there are lots of things that are evident about the world...such as the multiple-realizability of meaning...that suggest a totality...a Cosmos, if you will (although the Gnostics called it the Pleroma),...that is much richer, and meaningful than mundane reductionist thinking allows. :-P