Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks)

Sorry I haven't gotten back. Life gets hectic this time a year.I have no problem with a great discussion, but if I think it would be better if it was opened for others, if for no other reason than I'm not sure I have much else to add and I could use reinforcements.You have to be careful what you write here. I throw in what I thought was a clever turn of phrase and now look what's happened.

There is some justification for that but it isn't completely true. My theology is essentially formed by my understanding of scripture. My understanding of scripture is enlightened by what I believe to be solid Biblical scholars such as, (I realize I'm repeating myself here), C S Lewis and N T Wright, although I realize that Lewis would deny being a Biblical scholar.I also read those that have studied both science and theology such as John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath and John Lennox. Also on the more esoteric side I enjoy Gerald Schroeder.On the science side I have read a number of people such as Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, (her book largely went pretty much completely over my head), Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and I subscribe to Scientific American.For the anti-theistic side I have read Dawkins and Hitchens.I think where the idea of crank science comes from is that it is clear that in the end there is an absolute truth. This belief causes me to look for instances where there appears that there could be an overlap between science and my theology. I agree completely that these views are mere speculation but then so are many scientific theories. The difference of course is that the scientific theories might eventually be shown to be true whereas my speculations can't be proven.I think that there are different paths to that truth and that science is absolutely one of them. I understand those that think science is essentially the only path, and though I understand that POV and acknowledge that it might be true, I am firmly convinced that is not the case.Cheers and Merry Christmas