The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Theory Vs Fact Please note the 2 are not the same. Compare them to belief and you should be able to gather that religion is a belief system not a fact system. Belief is actually closer to theory and until theory can be proven without a doubt it is not a fact. Read the definitions again, theory is not fact. Theories change and so do beliefs but neither are fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. -HJ Muller

So are you saying that people didn't know that things fell to the ground and the effects of it until some guy sat near an apple tree and witnessed an apple fall and then come up with a name for the cause of the fall itself?

No, I'm saying people didn't know why things fell, not that they couldn't observe them fall.

Please explain to me what part of my statement that you responded to, quoted below for your convenience, prompted that reply.

This part: Neither religion nor science has all the answers and saying one is better than the other because of ...... and the other is meaningless or wrong because of ....... without actually giving any evidence does nothing for either side.

The Bible can quite easily be interpreted multiple ways. Does that mean it is correct or invalid?
Science can quite easily be interpreted multiple ways. Does that mean it is correct or invalid?

Well this is the exact opposite of your 1st statement in your last reply. Do you remember saying this?

Er, first statement last post...this is what you're referring to?

Originally Posted by reed First off, the fact that science changes with new evidence is a strength, not a weakness. That said, a lot of the time the seeming rapid change of "science" has nothing to do with the actual science and everything to do with science reporting. What happens in that we get preliminary studies, which almost always end up being partly or all wrong, being reported as scientific findings. There was an egregious example of this recently, with headlines running "Nasa reveals life on Mars". Of course, that was absolutely not the case.

How is that the opposite of saying science can be overturned? Science can be overturned, but it's not usually changing every week as you characterized it and large bodies of knowledge are quite stable. It takes many studies and ideally separate lines of evidence leading to the same conclusion for a scientific finding to start to seem firm. The fact that conflicting studies get published is to be expected. Most hypotheses turn out wrong and a single study is rarely if ever conclusive.

The bible, among other religious texts, tells believers to test false teachings. Of course the methods used millennia ago won't be as robust as they are now but then again methods 50 years ago weren't as robust as they are now.

How do you test false religious teachings?

Originally Posted by reed9 How do you test false religious teachings?

That reminds me:

Q: How do you play Religious Russian Roulette? A: You stand around in a circle and blaspheme and see who gets struck by lightning first.

Originally Posted by reed9 No, I'm saying people didn't know why things fell, not that they couldn't observe them fall.

So until modern science come about no one had a brain and couldn't think "hey there is some force I don't know about or understand helping the apples to fall?"

Originally Posted by reed9 This part: Neither religion nor science has all the answers and saying one is better than the other because of ...... and the other is meaningless or wrong because of ....... without actually giving any evidence does nothing for either side. The Bible can quite easily be interpreted multiple ways. Does that mean it is correct or invalid? Science can quite easily be interpreted multiple ways. Does that mean it is correct or invalid?

Well that clears it up, not. You quoted that after your statement so it most certainly doesn't appear as though your statement was in reply to that.

Anyway giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll ask what's the problem with what I said? What part troubles you so.

Originally Posted by reed9 Er, first statement last post...this is what you're referring to?

Nope, this one

Originally Posted by reed9 Ah, this argument just breaks my heart. It's such a misunderstanding of what science is. A scientific theory is fact.

This is quite a disparate statement to the other.

Originally Posted by reed9 How is that the opposite of saying science can be overturned?

Because facts are incontrovertible, theories aren't. Not only are you replying to quotes you haven't yet quoted you are also mixing your terminologies.

Originally Posted by reed9 Science can be overturned, but it's not usually changing every week as you characterized it and large bodies of knowledge are quite stable. It takes many studies and ideally separate lines of evidence leading to the same conclusion for a scientific finding to start to seem firm. The fact that conflicting studies get published is to be expected. Most hypotheses turn out wrong and a single study is rarely if ever conclusive.

Where have I said it is changing every week? I haven't. You either are not reading what I am saying or you just like putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by reed9 How do you test false religious teachings?

Use the book they sprout from against them. I can see this discussion taking another turn now.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 So until modern science come about no one had a brain and couldn't think "hey there is some force I don't know about or understand helping the apples to fall?"

Of course they thought there was some force they didn't know about or understand. Often referred to as "God". And they still didn't know how the apple fell.

Well that clears it up, not. You quoted that after your statement so it most certainly doesn't appear as though your statement was in reply to that.

Dude, I am responding to your general argument insofar as I can determine it. You've stated, when science changes so rapidly and people in discussions like this come out saying that science is the best option I wonder how much they really know, Science is an incomplete and flawed security blanket for to many people. Science says one thing one decade and then it will change to something completely opposite, there isn't much visible evidence for either side and what is there can be taken to represent many different things, along with what I pointed out before. I am pointing out to you the substantial differences between a scientific and religious world view and that science, by nature of its methodology, is capable of answering questions about the material world, and religion is not. If saying things like, "there isn't much evidence for either side" isn't trying to put religion and science on the same footing, then I don't know what you're talking about.

Because facts are incontrovertible, theories aren't. Not only are you replying to quotes you haven't yet quoted you are also mixing your terminologies.

I'm using the terms as they are generally used in science. Let me say it again, all truth, all facts, are provisional. From a scientific world view, nothing is absolutely incontrovertible. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios one could posit and you cannot disprove them all, you can never be absolutely certain, there is always the possibility something we think is actually wrong.

You completely ignored my link explaining how terms like fact and theory are used in science, but you continue to attack my terminology. I assume this means you're more interested in scoring points than having a discussion, so I think we're done.

And they still didn't know why the apple fell.

Didn't you mean: "they still didn't know how the apple fell"?

@reed9. Let me start by saying I haven't called you anything but reed or reed9 please use my chosen nickname or my name, I am not a Dude.

I have read your links but just because you posted them does not mean I have to use them. I haven't had a paddy because you haven't used the links I posted. You have made statements about what people posted that make no sense, you are asked what you replied to (reply is after not before) and you quote something after your reply. If this is a scientifically valid method to you then I am beginning to understand why you are talking chalk and cheese all the time. After saying, in a previous post, that I said science changes weekly you actually show I said decades. A scientist would admit their mistake and start again.

My statement about religion and science not having all the answers was in no way attempting to put them on the same footing in the way you think. It was to show you that neither are perfect, simple as that. Religion cannot answer questions about the death of stars or the formation of black holes and science cannot answer questions about morality. Why is it so hard for you to see this, why do you continue to talk chalk and cheese. You are the one who is trying to force religion into a scientific mold by your discussion style. No one here arguing religion has said it could do anything like make new discoveries about the universe. It is you coming out with these comments. Futhermore no one, that I have seen, has said science can do what religion does.

Your assertion that ancient man didn't know how an apple fell is nonsense. They wouldn't have known the finer details we do now but they weren't as thick as you are making out they were. I also find your assertion that they would have said it was "god" to be totally baseless and without evidence because you are assuming all ancient humans believed in god/s. This is a theory that you cannot prove and that no one can refute.

Do you know the problem with discussions like this? people get caught up in my way is the right, and only, way. People who support science say religion is junk and religious zealots say science cannot tell me ....... Both sides cannot see the forest for the trees. My statement above about chalk and cheese is what our discussion is about. Religion is chalk, science is cheese. You are trying to make religion do something it was never intended to do, your statement about me letting you know when religion comes up with some discovery (I know the wording isn't exact nor is it intended to be) was an attempt to force religion into your predefined schema. It doesn't work, cannot and never will, like that simply because the purpose of religion is not to explain in fine detail what is happening out side your door, town, city, country, planet, galaxy etc etc etc. Anyone who attempts to force it into that totally misses the point.

Both sides would do much better to concentrate on their field of interest and show how it works rather than knocking the other one down. If they must talk both side then they should at elast understand the 2 ideas cannot be scrutinised in the same way.

Hi, everybody. Chronic illness has kept me down for the last week or so, so I'm just now checking the (many!) new posts. Sorry if any of you were expecting an answer from me sooner. (Should I be so lucky?) :-)

Since a lot has been discussed since my last post, I'm just going to try to cover a few things that immediately come to mind.

On the subject of an argument from ignorance:
I'm quite aware that many otherwise intelligent people (and probably more not-as-intelligent ones) use this kind of reasoning to determine that there is a god:

"This extraordinary (good/bad) thing happened and I don't understand it! It's therefore a miracle, and is therefore an act of God!"

I'm aware that this is a fallacious line of reasoning and quite bad logical form. While the argument is certainly flawed, the conclusion can still be true; albeit that this sort of argument produces no reason to believe the conclusion. Therefore, I feel it prudent to caution the reader against using these bad arguments to "poison the well" (another logical fallacy) by saying/thinking that since people use such bad reasoning to indicate the existence of a higher being/power, then there must not be such a being or power. Better premises and logic may be available (possibly only in the future), but in these arguments you certainly haven't heard it. I didn't mean to imply in my previous post(s) that because we don't know everything/enough about something, it must indicate deity. Rather, I was advocating a departure from atheistic thinking, as that line of thinking necessarily makes assumptions about things we DO know, ultimately leading to the logically dubious conclusion that there IS NOT a god. Indeed, so far as I'm aware, there is no conclusive evidence, much less a sound claim that uses such evidence for the existence or non-existence of a higher power or deity. Rather, I mean to state that since the possibility may be plausible (based on the prevalence of religious/spiritual thinking, storied experiences, etc. for thousands of years/all of recorded history), it would be logically unsound to completely discount the possibility of there being a god or higher power. Thus I find atheism to be somewhat an ignorant standpoint (no offense intended towards those who are atheists) on the grounds that it requires the assumption:

"We know all that we need to know in order to conclusively determine that there is no god or higher power."

...or...

"Since there is no conclusive evidence that there is a god/higher power, then there must not be one."

...or perhaps something else generally along those lines. If a person were to claim to be an atheist because there is not sufficient evidence to prove such an existence, but who would change his/her mind if such were proven, then that person is, by definition, an agnostic, albeit a doubting/highly skeptical one.

From dictionary.com:

1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2.a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. –adjective 3.of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism. 4.asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Thus, a person who admits that conclusive information does not exist for either viewpoint is not committed to that viewpoint, and is therefore agnostic. One could also reasonably claim that a religious person who bases his/her experience on (perceived) empirical evidence is also an agnostic, as that person would change his/her mind if empirical evidence indicated to do so. It's worth noting at this point that in the view of many, religion is more about knowledge native to one's being (i.e. that comes from inside, or is felt more than known), and is therefore not determinate upon empirical evidence. I take a hybrid view of this, and claim that if/when we eventually know everything we can (or at least enough) using spiritual methods, as well as knowing everything we can (or enough) using empirical ones, then the two will agree; thus religion and science, while unable to necessarily prove one another, can (or will) give evidence for one another.

On revelation:
As for the matter of whose gut to trust/who's talking to God vs. who's crazy, I agree that this is very much a matter of perspective, and cannot be determined, in many cases, using empirical evidence alone. The Bible, as well as other scriptural books (of various religions) give hints and tips on how to know a false revelation/prophet from a true one, but the test that seems to fit best with the idea of religion being innate/internal knowledge is that of verifying their "revelation" with one of your own: speak to your deity personally (assuming you believe he/she/it will bother to listen and answer) and ask about the matter. At this point, I should affirm the notion that has been posted previously that whatever a person thinks, feels, expects, etc. to be "told" will greatly affect what one perceives to have been "told." My own experiences, as well as those of many who have told me about their own, and the observations of others' "revelations" resoundingly affirm the notion (which I would go so far as to call "fact") that one's own mind can and will easily drown out any "data transfer" from a higher power to you. I think that this is because He has unwaveringly proven, over the course of (gruesome) human history that He will never, under any circumstances, take away or inhibit our free will. To plow through our own (possibly misguided) ideas about what we want him to say/do and give us an unquestionable witness that it's him talking, and that our ideas are false would, in most people, be basically equivalent to batting aside what we want to think (want being the keyword--implying our use of free will), in favor of essentially making us think something else. In a pretty real sense, it would seem that we all have a God-given right to be idiots if we want to be. :-) Of course, a right to choose an action of any kind doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good or ethical/moral action to take. I think that's an important distinction, since to not distinguish it would essentially mean that God wants us to be thieves, rapists, murderers, etc. if we so desire...not stock and trade for a (benevolent) God as I know Him. (Your mileage or experiences may vary.)

On the possible existence of the paranormal:
I've personally had some pretty hairy personal experiences in this area, such that I can't with a good conscience (speaking of honesty and such) discount every one of the thousands of tales of the paranormal as being purely fictitious or misinterpretations of things that actually did happen, but weren't in any way paranormal. It's also worth noting that terms like "supernatural," "miraculous," or "paranormal" typically refer to stuff that we don't understand, and that doesn't appear to happen frequently. This essentially means that one day science will almost definitely find a valid and empirical explanation for any event that takes place and gives off empirical data (experiences with the senses, etc.) by doing so. This also doesn't mean that a god or higher power had nothing to do with it. Just because we can explain the mechanism whereby something has happened, and/or be able to reproduce it at will, without deific assistance has no bearing on whether another, more powerful being can't also do it, or that he/she/it didn't do it at the time described as being a "miraculous" event. In fact, it may well be a miracle in the sense that we might never know why it happened that time without consulting/considering that very being or power. Albert Eienstien famously stated that "God does not play dice" (a reference to quantum mechanical theory). Yes, there are a lot of things that said theory explains better at present than does a deterministic physics model, but as we continue to learn more about the universe, that may well change. (I personally find quantum mechanics to be a very effective and well thought-out kludge for working with stuff that we don't have a any [reliable] means of observing or measuring. While an electron may well exist at a finite point, saying that "it's somewhere in this probability cloud" is still pretty darned effective, and for practical purposes is correct and "close enough" to work for [to my knowledge] everything that we've tried it on. Entanglement and other weird quantum "stuff" may well be resultant from a more deterministic reality, but one that we haven't quite learned to observe yet using an entirely correct [and/or presently non-existent] physical model.)

At this point, I imagine that somebody will be curious about the kinds of things I've seen and experienced that leave me so certain that the "supernatural" does exist. Unfortunately, being called "crazy" and such for saying so has grown pretty tiresome for me over the years, so I'll suffice to link to some pages that talk about similar matters. I can't verify the specific events or methods described on these pages, but the descriptions are closely related to my own experiences.

http://paranormal.about.com/od/telek...a/aa110804.htm

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa042698.htm

Yes, it probably sounds crazy, but I can't help but think that all this stuff is related to a greater whole. Something to think about...if you have a mind to do so. :-)

--Dane

Well, again I'm not interested in arguing definitions. I know what the dictionary says of atheism and agnosticism, and I only want to let folks know how it's used in much of the atheist community. (Though there as well people argue over "dictionary atheists".)

For the rest, we're rather left going in circles. I think I've already addressed all the points you raised.

So going in another direction, given the uncertainty involved, why believe? Is there something unique only religion can provide to us? It seems to me community, ethics, morality, culture, even something akin to "sprituality" if you strip it of all supernatural connotations, can all be equally well provided by secular sources. (In fact, there's some evidence that atheists are more moral and happier than strong believers.) So if there's no compelling reason to believe God exists, and there is nothing unique that religion provides, then why?

On the subject of personal experience of the divine or the supernatural, this is something I feel I must be incapable of understanding. I've had weird experiences and I've had what some might call spiritual moments, a sense of deep connection with...well, everything. I've had mystical experiences, albeit on mushrooms, as well. None of that in the least bit makes me think there is a god or anything supernatural in the universe. There is no personal experience that could ever make me believe in God, because fundamentally, personal anecdote, even my own, is not evidence.

Originally Posted by reed9 So if there's no compelling reason to believe God exists, and there is nothing unique that religion provides, then why? On the subject of personal experience of the divine or the supernatural, this is something I feel I must be incapable of understanding. I've had weird experiences and I've had what some might call spiritual moments, a sense of deep connection with...well, everything. I've had mystical experiences, albeit on mushrooms, as well. None of that in the least bit makes me think there is a god or anything supernatural in the universe. There is no personal experience that could ever make me believe in God, because fundamentally, personal anecdote, even my own, is not evidence.

Because of the fear of death. Most people have an intense, overpowering fear of death, and so religion was created to quell that fear, while at the same time ...

Fear is caused by a lack of understanding. If you understand everything, you fear nothing. I fear nothing.

As for weird experiences, they can all be explained logically, even shrooms.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Most people have an intense, overpowering fear of death,

Correction: some people.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Fear is caused by a lack of understanding. If you understand everything, you fear nothing.

In my opinion, once you understand everything, you'll go insane immediately. Happiest people do not think about "the meaning of life", "who created the world", they just enjoy living. Once you start thinking about more complex things, you're in trouble - just being able to imagine the size of the universe may be enough to drive a person crazy, and there are many other fascinating subjects to trouble your brain with.

Another problem is that fear isn't always triggered by lack of understanding - there are many other reasons for fear, and "understanding" doesn't help against all of them. It is possible to understand and be afraid anyway.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H As for weird experiences, they can all be explained logically, even shrooms.

Everything can be explaining logically, but using logic does not guarantee you'll get correct explanation. In order to make logic work, you should start with correct assumptions. Theism, atheism and agnosticism are ALL logical, the difference between them is that their logical systems are built on different bases. Start with incorrect assumption, and you'll reach incorrect conclusion.

’To begin with,’ said the Cat, ‘a dog’s not mad. You grant that?’ ’I suppose so,’ said Alice. ’Well, then,’ the Cat went on, ‘you see, a dog growls when it’s angry, and wags its tail when it’s pleased. Now I growl when I’m pleased, and wag my tail when I’m angry. Therefore I’m mad.’

Originally Posted by reed9 For the rest, we're rather left going in circles. I think I've already addressed all the points you raised. So going in another direction, given the uncertainty involved, why believe?

I know you will probably ignore this but after saying the topic is going around in circles you have brought up something we have already discussed.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Correction: some people.

Correction: 90% of people are so terrified of death, they must resort to religion to quell their fear.

In my opinion, once you understand everything, you'll go insane immediately. Happiest people do not think about "the meaning of life", "who created the world", they just enjoy living. Once you start thinking about more complex things, you're in trouble - just being able to imagine the size of the universe may be enough to drive a person crazy, and there are many other fascinating subjects to trouble your brain with.

Conclusion: I am insane (and obviously everyone else is sane).

Another problem is that fear isn't always triggered by lack of understanding - there are many other reasons for fear, and "understanding" doesn't help against all of them. It is possible to understand and be afraid anyway.

Examples ? So you mean, you see a snake or a bear ? There will be an adrenaline rush, yes. Some people may say this is fear, but I say no. If you are afraid, you'll freeze up, not think, and you may die. It is important to stay cool, and think clearly, and thus not fear.

Everything can be explaining logically, but using logic does not guarantee you'll get correct explanation. In order to make logic work, you should start with correct assumptions. Theism, atheism and agnosticism are ALL logical, the difference between them is that their logical systems are built on different bases. Start with incorrect assumption, and you'll reach incorrect conclusion.

I don't start with any assumptions. I start with observations. In fact, I don't make any assumptions, not in completely logical arguments.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Correction: 90% of people are so terrified of death, they must resort to religion to quell their fear.

I have not encountered any statistics that support your argument, therefore I belive that your statement is incorrect.
I know that some people are terrified of death, and I know that some religions offer "immortality"/"afterlife".
However, I have no proof that people choose religion because they're afraid of death, and I do not know how many people are afraid of death.
I have no proof that religion cures fear of death (I cannot guarantee that no believer is afraid to die).
I also know that some religious people are deathly afraid of hell(when religion have the concept), and it is possible that that fear of hell may be as strong as fear of death. I also know that if asked to choose between eternal pain (immortality/afterlife) and death (complete disappearance with no immortality/afterlife) some people will prefer to die(disappear and give up on immortality/afterlife).
Therefore I cannot say that religon is a universal cure for fear of death, and I can say that some people have fear of being sent in hell instead or in addition to fear of death.
I also cannot guarantee that every religion provides afterlife/immortality of individual, therefore I see no reason to generalize and say "that all religion is meant to quell fear of death".
Another problem that there are multiple reasons for being afraid to die, and religion deals only with one of them.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Conclusion: I am insane (and obviously everyone else is sane).

Conclusion: you're sane, but do not understand/know everything yet.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H It is important to stay cool, and think clearly, and thus not fear.

AFAIK, to achieve that you'll have to cease being a human. Or spend 80 years training.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Examples ?

Take a look at any phobia.
For example, if you were attacked by dog or a cat as a child, you may develop fear of cats or dogs.
The fear will be completely irrational - you will be able to understand that that animal poses no threat for you, but you still will be afraid. During the course of life you may found yourself in situation when you're about to experience severe pain and can't avoid it - you will be afraid at that moment too. If you get electrocuted by accidentally touching live wire, for a time you may become afraid to touch any wire even when you know there no risk of being shocked again.

AFAIK, fears like that gets wired into your brain at deeper level, and you cannot easily suppress them using higher-level logical thinking.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I start with observations. In fact, I don't make any assumptions, not in completely logical arguments.

Well, in this case you start with assumption that events you observed are enough to make correct conclusion and that you have ability to observe (you don't see in infrared, for example) all required events to come up with good explanation.
When you have not observed enough events to uncover true meaning of something, you'll build an invalid/incomplete theory that will provide a reasonable explanation. Afaik during early days of physics/medicine there were many theories like that (phrenology, aether, etc).

In my opinion, you trust your logic way too much. Brain/logic cannot completely control/suppress emotion, and relying on logic alone(relying only on one half of the brain) is a weakness. Combining logic/emotion is a strength of human kind. Being only logical will make you into machine, and since there is no logical reason to live, that won't be very helpful.

I know that fear and a lack of understanding is the cause for religion, there can be no other reason.

I do know everything that I need to know, with respect to the important questions. I don't know everything there is to know about everything, that may not be possible. But, your attitude is more important than this. I have the ability to understand things, things that other do not understand, and will never understand. Things about the universe, the mind, matter, etc. You cannot tell me I do not know or understand these things, because I have not even said them.

Human is a generalization. When people say human they mean the average sheep. Going about their daily tasks, with really only the same abilities as a tape recorder. They record, and they play back, and that's it. They may sometimes fast forward.

Not everyone gets phobias. Some people are more susceptible, some less, some not at all.

There is room for emotion, but there is one thing that Aristotle said that is good (the rest of what he said was BS). He divided arguments into pathos, ethos, and logos. Of these, the one that is best to use is logos. Ethos is next in importance, and pathos is last, because it can be used to mislead, as it has been used so many times in the past. You should never make decisions, or accept arguments based solely upon pathos, it is a huge mistake that lead the world into ruin ... as is currently happening. Some time ago, the world was deceived by Sauron the deceiver, not only with the one ring, but also in other ways. An argument was made based solely upon pathos, and everyone accepted it as truth, when it was a lie. And this happens again and again. Be aware of this, and don't accept arguments with no logical backing.

No logical reason to live ? No, there is no reason to live, nor any reason to die. It's a choice you make, but not really. You don't choose to live, and can't really choose to die. Even if you die, do you expect things just to cease ? They might, but what if they don't ? What if you must live, and you cannot experience anything but life. Maybe death doesn't even exist, at least to you. Others may see you die, but you may not experience it.

In fact, I don't make any assumptions, not in completely logical arguments.

Congratulations. Unfortunately, logic is full of hidden assumptions. Starting with the assumption that the ultimate test of things is to be found in logic. Or the identity principle, which states that A can only be A (and not B or C) but which contradicts the Heisenberg principle. Or the principle of non-contradiction, which states that A can not simultaneously be non-A but which contradicts our experience that many things are not either white or black but both at the same time.

Logic is just one among the many tools in our survival kit that is useful in addressing some vital problems, just as emotion is (there is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why murder, even the eradication of mankind, should be immoral; it is only our emotion that tells us so).

Your nihilist views of the meaning of life are the logical outcome of a world view based on a footing as shaky as logic. Or on that of science, which starts by excluding all considerations of reason and purpose in order to focus on causality and then ends up with answers that have nothing to say about either. Oddly enough (where is the much praised logic here?), some claim that it therefore follows that reason and purpose are illusions. But that is, again, assuming that science answers all questions, even those it does not address (because it simply cannot).