Two last points: I do not equate the philosophy of atheism with religion directly. I DO equate the tactics and the language of the militant atheist with that of the fundamentalist religious devotee. Zealotry is zealotry under any guise, and while the philosophy of atheism is obviously more evolved than that of traditional religions (of any stripe), it is no less subject to codification and dogmatization.

I made a distinction also between surpassing and dismissing. Obviously, valid observation is valid by definition. Newton's laws were originally thought to govern all matter--and at the time they did; all KNOWN matter worked within Newtonian physics. Newton was surpassed in the quantum age when it became evident that those laws ceased to function at the quantum level. Quantum mechanics did not negate Newton's laws in the manifest world in which he elaborated them, but the discovery of relativity and the quantum field required dismissing those laws in the very macro and micro manifest world. The broader the viewpoint (i.e. the more experience we have relative to what we're observing, the more we can observe and the more we experience, ad infinitum) the more accurate we can be in our explanation.

You seem to me to speak of atheism as an absolute, and I am merely suggesting that it is more rightly open-ended and evolving in the same way that the whole of the Cosmos is open-ended and evolving. To state "this is fact for all time" denies all the historical examples of a statement like that later being proven false and closes the door on further, current examination.

That's a problem to me.

Again, that is a beautiful explanation, and of course the focus on necessary and sufficient conditions is succinct and reliable.

However, I doubt very much that the questions "why are we here?" and "what was there before there was something?" will ever be vanquished from the human experience. That mystery, though it shall remain a mystery, is not unworthy of exploration or discourse. You choose not to entertain these questions and that's fine, but to suggest that they are not valid questions I think is incorrect.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your passion and willingness to continue to engage.

There is only one point you make that I personally take issue with, and that is your statement that:

If one questioner could just provide the n-s conditions for his claim, or the underpinning of his quest, then much of this could be rendered more legitimate as a useful pursuit. As opposed to mere speculations that never produce results.

I would suggest that your use of the term "results" is biased on positivist assumptions. Perhaps the "results" obtained from intellectual study of the "infinite" or "mystery" do not meet the critera for empirical science. However, your mention of "returning to the same point in an endless loop" reminds me very much of mantra meditation.

As you probably know, science has shown repeatedly that regular meditators have certain physiological and neural strengths not generally found in non-meditators. As you also probably know, many Eastern forms of meditation have no need of any higher deity in the way the Western traditions do; that is they don't posit, "God". I think for the intellectually inclined seeker, philosophical study of this sort acts as meditation and may indeed provide "results" in the form of improved health and well-being rather than strict, empirical answers.

That is why I don't believe them to be a waste of time. Although this path is certainly not for everyone, as not everyone is satisfied with non- or trans-rational "answers".

Take care.

First, I think this is one of the sharpest BB's in many Sundays! Welcome back, Berkeley!

Second, it suddenly strikes me as terribly interesting that so many people who loathe this strip are always so quick to post letters expressing their hatred of it.

As much as Salon's op-ed pieces get hate mail, Opus gets--I'm totally speculating based on my sense of it--substantially more negative mail than any other op-ed/satirical feature. Why?

My first ever published letter to an editor was a response to all of the hate mail sent to the Spokesman Review re:Doonesbury's flag burning strips back in the late 80's, so it's certainly nothing new. AND, it's not relegated to the right either as all of the posts referencing Mallard Fillmore prove--liberals hate comics they don't agree with more than they hate columns just as much as conservatives do.

This is simply an observation, but I'd love to hear what y'all have to say about this. WTF?!? What is it about speech ballons and line drawing that sets people off???