I think our discussion moved more to the top, but I'm glad I found your post.
***What struck me is the distinction between meaning and truth. We make assumptions that yield meaning in our lives, but are ready to sacrifice them in the interests of truth. The best of all worlds would then be to get meaning from truth.***
I agree, but keep in mind that truth is ultimately undefinable (at least it appears to be so). So, meaning must always be there, and then we seek truth in light of that meaning. Our attachment to the world is through meaning, but our progress in the world is through seeking truth. If we can successfully obtain meaning from our truth seeking (which is what I think happens), then that is the best situation.
***My compromise position is to speculate on the make up of the universe, including god, in such a way that the speculaions are compatible with physics.***
I think any truthful position requires this.
***So in a sense I elevate evolution to the status of a god principle. That gives my existense meaning, and it comes from some semblance of truth.***
I think such schemes are helpful, but you at the same time you don't want to fall into the Richard Stafford trap (or Frank Tipler trap, eg, "Physics of Immortality"). I prefer to stick with more traditional views of theism since it would seem that if God really wanted us to know him, the insight to his existence should have been with us all along. Waiting until the 21st century arrival of string theory before we come upon such a speculative account of his existence seems as if God had no interaction with humanity at all. If so, that strongly denies theism (at least personal theism) since an interactive Creator with his universe seems to be a very important tenet of theism.
Warm regards, Harv