Hi Bzrd, in your post you refer to what holds the universe together, but you are assuming that if there was not something to do this, that it would fall apart? Where does this assumption come from?
Logic simply means a method to deduct a correct understanding of something with many parts which are connected or related, the aparatus of language and how it functions in our brains allow us a good start toward the true use of logic, we are far from it currently, this is due to our lack of objectivity, we are bound by needs, physically and mentally, thus pure logic is impossible for us. Even if we develop artificial intelligence, it will still be dependent upon something to sustain itself, whatever that may be. Of course Mr. Hawkins must consider his own awareness, which you call spirituality, this is due to what he knows and was taught about his environment, the use of logic has allowed him to rise above a simple acceptance of what other professed to be truth.
Spirituality does not demand a god or religion, for we atheists are as spiritual as anyone else. It is a product of our awareness of self as well as the external world, and in this mode I believe that atheists have a hypersensitive awareness of what spirituality actually is, which is not some glorified/justified and/or will/creation of some invisible being, it is a product of nature, and so it is OUR nature. It is just a simple part of the universe which we find ultimately important because it affects us, our self. I especially do not think pure objectivity could ever be condensed into such a thing as a book, it will be a huge body of knowledge which is what we have taken a baby step toward in this day and age, all the knowledge from our past as a whole, a baby step.
Exactly what is it in the bible that you think may be the holy grail to knowledge/logic or complete understanding of the universe and our place in it?

• RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - jake - March 21, 2000 - 17:51 UTC
  • RE: RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - Blue_Leader - March 26, 2000 - 07:03 UTC
• RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - bzrd - March 21, 2000 - 18:24 UTC
  • space-time not - Blake Bea - March 22, 2000 - 03:49 UTC
  • RE: RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - Phil.O.Sofir - March 24, 2000 - 13:09 UTC
  • RE: RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - Phil.O.Sofir - March 24, 2000 - 13:14 UTC
    • RE: God - B.B. - March 24, 2000 - 18:24 UTC
      • RE: RE: God - Phil.O.Sofir - March 25, 2000 - 03:02 UTC
        • RE: God - Only time will tell - March 26, 2000 - 04:50 UTC
          • RE: RE: God - Phil.O.Sofir - March 26, 2000 - 12:27 UTC
            • RE: God - if your'e wrong then you're fantasizing - March 27, 2000 - 17:12 UTC
    • RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - - March 25, 2000 - 19:50 UTC
      • RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - Phil.O.Sofir - March 26, 2000 - 12:20 UTC
        • Explain God - God talked to me - March 27, 2000 - 17:09 UTC
          • RE: Explain God - Francis - March 29, 2000 - 03:16 UTC
• RE: RE: RE: If science is to explain God - Blue_Leader - March 26, 2000 - 06:58 UTC