"IMHO--and it is an opinion--there is no direct, reductionistic, concrete evidence for a personal God--in the monotheist sense of the word; there is only indirect evidence as the result of faith and opinion. As I understand it, the God of theism is beyond existence, as we think of it. Therefore, He is, if anything, ineffable."
1. I don't think this "indirect evidence" is evidence in the scientific sense at all.
2. What is the purpose in effing the ineffable?
3. The problem with pantheistic or panENtheistic views of god (from a scientific view, if not a philosophical one) is that invariably they end up associating a lot of extra baggage with whatever physical definition they apply to god. This is a situation that's bound to be confused when you start out using a baggage-laden term like "god" to describe something physical.
Science does not do God. I don't think I can state it any plainer than that.
Not everything, OTOH, has to be scientific. Lots of very important things are not scientific or science, per se. Moreover, science is not a panacea for solving all of our problems or making us happier. It's a tool with a specific purpose.
Technology helps and hurts. The world gets to be a better place when individuals step up to the plate, take some responsibility, and DO things - participate, help each other, get involved with their communities, etc. Science might provide some insight into how we might do this, but it's not actually a scientific problem, per se.
What science CAN do is give people a feel for what the problems are and how we might solve them. It can give people a sense of awe at the natural world. It can help us to understand that many problems are solvable. But the issue of getting people off their behinds? It's not science. It's altruism; it's good intentions; it's responsibility. Take your pick.
And sorry about your brother. I hope he had a long and good life.
