A local apologist blogÂ recently discussed Antony Flew, famously an atheist turned deist.Â The good and accurate point discussed in the post is summarized as follows:
…the question [of God’s existence] should be placed under the jurisdiction of philosophers; for to study the interaction of subatomic particles, he notes, is to engage in physics; but to askÂ whyÂ those particles exist or behave in certain ways is to engage in philosophy.
I agree.Â And it struck me that such a distinction goes all the way up from the micro (e.g. quarks), to the observable (e.g. plants), to the macro (e.g. the cosmos).
A slightly moreÂ negative way to say that is: you don’t need modern scientific microscopic or telescopic insight to go beyond the mechanics of how something (e.g. grass) functions, to pondering ultimate questions of existence, purpose and meaning.