i wrote this in an email but i'll try here too.

what would be your response to the main precept of kant's "critique of pure reason," i.e., that our perception of reality is filtered through our five senses and our consciousness and thus is not a direct experience of reality at all, and so our reason (or rationality if you will) cannot be depended upon to apprehend "truth"?

is the triumph of rationality really your organization's aim, or only the end of religion?  because religion is not rationality's only obstacle.  what about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?  doesn't that severely limit human reason's ability to "conquer" the universe?

also, i'm a bit confused as to what sapient meant on the nightline debate when he said that the universe is infinite.  i admit my knowledge of astro and quantum physics is derived mostly from dr. hawking's writings, but doesn't he demonstrate effectiveloy that the universe is not infinite in a "boundless" sense?  or did sapient mean that the universe is cyclical, in the sense of an endless succession of big bangs and big crunches?  it seems to me that dr. hawking leans toward an ever expanding universe that will not return to a quantum singularity.  so isn't all matter moving in a linear progression toward a sort of freezing death?

i would also be interested to know which version of the big bang sapient endorses: the quantum singularity or the collision of matter and anti-matter.