Atheistic Hyper-rationalism and Naive Belief in Science b Luke Clark It is not hyper-rationalist to disbelieve in magical occurrences such as virgin

births, splittings of the moon, partings of the seas, resurrections of the dead, transformations of water into wine, etc. when insufficient evidence has been provided for such incidents. We understand the physiological processes underlying the experience of pain pretty well at this point and have at least a tentative rational of how/why it evolved, but there is always room for more knowledge. I should think that 'couldn't explain pain theism' is a more apt term, given the rather pathetic attempts at theists to work around the problem of evil. As for trust in science: there is nothing naive in accepting that it is the best method humans have yet come up with for investigating the physical world. When dealing with politics, literature, ethics, and more 'metaphysical' concerns, we have appropriate disciplines to turn to. If religion wishes to stay confined to the cultural arena, so be it- we can then discuss it from the viewpoint of philosophy or political science or sociology. But when its followers make claims about the physical world (deigning to teach life-scientists biology or cosmologists physics or archaeologists history), then invoking the results of scientific investigation is appropriate.