And science does indeed study existence from the smallest scale to that of the entire visible Universe and beyond, from the purely mechanical to the nature of mind and consciousness,  without pre-judging what will be found. The image of the microscope grossly misrepresents what 'science' encompasses. Science does indeed try to understand all of life by studying all of life.

The religious obsess over the 'why' , the 'purpose', but there is no reason that there should be such a purpose to be found, at least outside ourselves. The search for such an external justification for our existence is the vision of the slave, who can only conceive of purpose in his master's will.

Only someone with no real knowledge of the scientific approach could make such claims as a made in that post. Many many scientists will point to the infinitely greater wonders revealed by our investigations into the Universe than the primitive, ignorant, error riddled 'visions' of the relgious scriptures.

The writings of Carl Sagan, for one, give the lie to the sentiments expressed in that post.

This is another point were anachronistic reflection takes place. The supernatural is not evoked for the purpose of giving an explanation to natural phenomena, but rather evoked to find a means to control the uncontrollable, or to have hope in their present world in the face of an undissuadable tragedy. Those in the ancient world rarely had the means as we do to avoid certain tragic fates, as the victims of floods (they had no FEMA), plagues, wars, etc. How could they preserve any hope in these things for which despair is to prevade?

In an inability to control their fate on their own, they had to project this control to supernatural forces, faith in the only thing that could make the impossible possible, to preserve any sense of hope they could have at all.

An ancient society facing an inevitable war against a superior foe, would have faith in the hands of the gods, to turn their odds into their favor, or they would have to accept inevitable despair. The invoking of the supernatural is in the end only an expression of faith against the odds, an expression of hope in the face of inevitable despair. 

This sort of framework is not even foreign to unbelievers, you find similar sort of expressions, though void of the same sort of magically symbolism, are product of magical thinking nonetheless. In replace of religious belief's of divine providence, of MLK's Promise Land, you get visions of secular utopias, such as the beliefs of what communism would bring. In the thoughts of our "new atheist", the Dawkins, Dennet, Harris like we get the magical sort of belief of achieving our true potentialities, of an inherently good nature tainted by outside forces such as religion, that the end of religion will usher in a new and glorious dawn of man. Such beliefs (though somewhat exaggerated for affect, but no less magical) are the basis for why even such a forum like this exist.

Literalism in the expression of some Christian faiths didn't spring out of nothing. In fact modern literalist and our atheists have much in common, in a dewey-eyed devotion to science, and a modern sensibility devoid of poetic imagination. It is why they require from the bible a sort of modern history textbook precision, which is far from the sensibility of premodern men who cared little for what actually happened, but rather for what was the meaning of what happened.

Even this sensibility, in it's modern expression, in the Christian faith, is to reform one's religion into the context of modern of life. With the rise of modern science, and the curiosity it brought along for the privileged, and the desire for such men to find that sort of quesy wonderment in the Bible, some men desired to read it back into their religion. 

(this is not to say a sense of literalism did not exist prior to the modern age, but rather the reasons for why it existed than and now, are not the same.)

Now this is where, we see how the atheist and those creationist think alike. The Bible makes no such claims about the Origin (other than god created all) of the universe, or of how the earth and all of life came into existence. Such claims involve a great deal of anachronistic thinking. To say that the Genesis creation story is a claim on how the earth and life came into existence, is no less sillier than saying that the story of the Tortoise and the Hare is making a claim that rabbits and turtles can talk. 

It assumes with great of arrogance, that not only were men of the ancient world ignorant, but ignorant of their ignorance as well. Individuals such as yourself, the Dawkins and Sagans of the world, assume that their scientific curiosity about the hows of life, is a biological rather than culturally placed curiosity. That it is something inherent in us, rather than something that developed as the result of having tools to explore such questions, and the privilege needed to devote oneself to pondering them

I can be a testament for this, in that I had no real curiosity about the hows of life, the mechanics of how we came to be. Though I've spent a good deal of time learning about evolution, the desire to learn about it only sprung up when I became familiar with controversy brewing over it. From the earliest age I can remember, I had no problem accepting evolution as the explanation, but had no real interest in learning this explanation, it was trivial to me. It was as if a mathematician had presented a long and intricate equation and said that a certain number was it's solution. I had no desire to explore if he was right or wrong, the solution and the problem were trivial matters to me. Trivial to the questions that really mattered in my life. I had no emotional interest in the solution.

And contrary to what you may feel, I do not buck the norm, in fact the greater deal of humanity is no different than me. The bible is nearly null and void of such reflection, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find one verse in the New Testament speaking of God as creator. It's only the privileged who are so devoted to contemplating these mechanics. For those who live lives of any real suffering, or oppression, meaning becomes the most vital question of their existence, the "is there any hope or meaning in all of this or not"--a question for which their despair and hope hinge on.

I'll assume our common atheist so deluded with their dimwitted way of thinking can hardly grasp this. As they assume this sort of wonderment, Dawkins sense of wanting to bow down in front of the stars is universal. As Bobspence attempts to peddle in his post:

"many scientists will point to the infinitely greater wonders revealed by our investigations into the Universe."

He like Sagan fails to understand that beyond privileged societies, this sort of wonderment is null. The stars and the biology of life is as amusing to me as the taste of a cup of tea before bed. The Bobspences of the world are no different than a stamp collector speaking of his passion for collecting stamps, and speaking of the few in his collection he is fond of the most, but the difference in the intelligence of the stamp collector and the Dawkins/Sagans of the world is that the stamp collector more than likely knows that everyone else is unlikely to share in his amusement.

Well, you pretty much created a dilemma with a blur of an opponent. I find Jesus Christ, a Christ centered worldview to be the truest approximation of life there is, as the pervading voice of what love, beauty, forgiveness, hope, meaning there is to be found. I find the Christian worldview to be superior to any other worldview in this encompassing regard, nor is this worldview void of scientific insights in it's contemplation. SO the question you asked is a bit senseless, in that you would have to define that worldview, like pit the christian worldview against a defined humanist one, and what in this worldview gives a truer understanding of Love and etc... than the Christian one.

But it's been my experience, that I rarely find individuals vouching for any other worldview, besides their undeveloped ones, that have barely thought of the questions that the Gospels attempt to confront. Unlike some theist, I surround myself with works from all sorts of perspective, from Dawkins, and company, to the Bertrand Russells, and Daniel Dennets, to the Sagans, or those very old school philosophers, but I have yet to find a work that reflects on what the the writers of the Gospels reflect on, with even the slighted bit of depth. If you know of such works, let me know, because there's a decent chance i'd look into picking them up. 

To quote Pascal:"The philosophers talk to you about the dignity of man, and they tempt you to pride, or they talk to you about the misery of man, and they tempt you to despair. But "Where, but in the simplicity of the Gospel, can you hear about both the dignity of man and the misery of man?"

Well, I for one consider Sagan as social critic, particularly in his work "The Demon Haunted World" to be dimwitted. And I thought this when I was an unbeliever. Sagan is surely no Karl Marx. In fact I wrote a long and lengthy essay on it (as well as on similar ideas of others) some years back for an English class, that my Californian professor now accompanies with the book in every subsequent reading of it. If you desire, i can email it to you.

Another poor assessment on your part. A religious person who finds a sense of great purpose and meaning in his life, conceives of it's greatness as being God's own. If he found a greater sense of meaning and purpose that he felt wasn't God's own, he'd abandon his god, or Gods all together. He is not a slave to the masters will, but freely sees his will as his master's own. 

My use of the image of microscope, was not intended to be implied literally, but rather to convey that science is concerned to that which is reducible. Science is not all encompassing, and to understand this distinction in spheres is rather simple. Imagine if your wife were to ask you why do you love her? She's not seeking a scientific answer for it, about the biology of your sentiment of love, nor are you going to provide that sort of explanation for her--unless you're seeking a divorce. She is seeking a "poetic" justification for why you love her. Or if I were to ask what is the meaning of true love, scientist within their medium would hardly be able to articulate it beyond a mere biological sentiment. But rather the question involves the poetic reflection of our everyday lives to explain it, to give it meaning. Notions such as morality, beauty, love, justice, all fall under this sphere, though such notions can be informed by science, science is not a sphere that defines the truth in them, just like thinking more scientifically does not mean that i would be thinking more morally. 

And it may just be that such poetic reflection is trivial to the common atheist on this forum, who lives in his own version of disney land, and it may just as well explain ryandinan antagonism to "poetic nonsense". But for those whose everyday lives involves conflicts and struggles with this poetic sphere, such as suffering, and despair, prevailing indifference, it's not this sphere that's trivial, but rather the scientific sphere you exalt

The Bible as books written reflecting on conditions of suffering, misery, and oppression of the ancient Hebrews, which accumulates in the Gospels, with the image of the suffering and humiliated God is a work of poetic reflection not scientific reflection. 

And though you and privileged others may be able to shake yourselves off of poetic reflection, for me, even if i were to no longer believe, it would still be a Christ haunted world. 

Actually, you agree with the 10 commandments ot a significant degree. All the stuff you mention as objections are just the differences that make debates and reevaluation of positions possible. If you agreed fully, there would be little to discuss and thereby little to keep our mind on the target.