First of all, define "God". When you use the word God, you are referring to a specific subset of possible entities which presumably excludes watermelons and black holes. What attributes does this subset of possible entities have that watermelons and black holes do not have? When you can define the term "God" for me without evoking some kind of objective attributes, please tell me what that definition is. Without some kind of preliminary definition of "God", all discussion of God's existence is completely meaningless. So far, the only attribute you have given to this God concept is the attribute of subjectivity.
I would never be so arrogant to assume to be able to define god (and if you knew me, you'd realise that that's saying something). The nature of god is undefinable. it is all attributes, or more correctly perhaps, no attributes at all. I would suggest that all attributes are subjective aspects of the mind, much like kantian categories, whereas god both within and outside of mind, inherent also within the world.
Realise that this is a two edged sword of course, saying both everything and nothing. The existence of such a god necessitates the falsification of all doctrine. Any definition is right only in part, which is perhaps also to say, not at all.
All subjectivity stems from some complex arrangement of objective things. Your thoughts and emotions are neuronal patterns in your brain, which are, in principle, objectively quantifiable, because your brain is a physical object and your subjective consciousness is just a complex emergent phenomenon of the trillions of neurons firing around in your brain in response to trillions of internal and external stimuli. Consciousness is complex, sure, but everything it entails can essentially be boiled down to subatomic particles following the laws of physics.
But the labels you attach to these objective things of yours are subjective ones?
What does the thought "What does a thought look like?" look like?
Hmmmm, we may have to agree to disagree here. I have seen no evidence, despite the remarkable advances in neurobiology that supports a complete materialist reduction. I think it would be remarkably unscientific to assume as such until the evidence is in. And I suspect it never will be. I have a greatly developed faith in science's ability to describe the evolution of the universe, life, and perhaps even the human mind. But I find it curious that there seem to be corresponding gaps within all these diverse fields that allow for the unseen to slip through the cracks. The origin of the big bang, the first spark of life on earth, and human consciousness.
I wouldn't necessarily argue for a supernatural answer. But the answer exists outside of the current "facts" that create our reality. And I'm open to that, rather than attempting sweep these embaressing unknowns under the rug.
Science can only progess by exploring the unknown, never by hiding from it.
Fundamentalist? Are you sure that's the right word?
Fundamentalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes. Fundamentalism. As I use it, a strict adherence to central doctrine, often to the point of ignoring alternative claims or challenges. I know we're more used to seeing this concept applied to religious groups, but I find it remarkably apt to describe most atheistic and materialistic doctrines as well.
We still use Newton's system because most of the speeds we travel at are way too slow to be affected by Einsteinian relativity. Newton's laws are very simple to use and applicable for pretty much all the speeds we need to worry about here on Earth. Unless you're launching a satellite into space of something, ignoring Einstein's equations isn't going to do much harm. Nobody really cares if they experience a time dilation of a fraction of a nanosecond on their flight to Hong Kong.
Exactly. We can still use newtonian physics because it still does a rather accurate job of modeling our world for us. Relativity does an even better job, at an even larger scale. And currently physics is working to go even beyond Einstein, who's equations have been shown, like Newton's, to not match entirely to reality, despite how well they serve our purposes.
Physics serves to model our universe, but it doesn't describe it. It's another subjective lens that we use to interpret what we observe. Science is a tool for understanding reality, just as ancient cultures used religion. I'll go one futher and say that science is better because it's more adaptive. But these adaptations come from awareness of factors outside of the current scope, rather than simple meditation upon what "already is".
This is my point with physics, science, myth, and religion: it's all a subjective understanding. Your objectivity is subjective. So what are you asking for?