[Marcov]

Firstly, I'm not trying to prove anything here. I am not hitting at anyone, but am stating something that can be discussed about.

Well, we probably all know of phenomena that have not actually been proven, tested, or perfectly explained yet; "magic". When I mean "magic", it means...that. Magic, the one that simply can't be true, according to our own scientific standards.

The thing is, we could all easily just dismiss these as "nonsense" and fantasy. But the striking question is...how are we to make such a conclusion if we probably do not know how every single thing works?

Science, by nature, is open to change. Before, humans had formed all sorts of myths, legends, in the hope of attempting to explain natural phenomena. Over time though, the science community had formed a basis for studying nature; something that is provable, testable, etc. the usual stuff. It just so happens that science was able to explain most things, in an unbiased, systematic way. But again, Science 10,000 years from now is just certainly going to be different.

Before, for instance, humans have believed in spontaneous generation - dung beetles are born from feces, rats from garbage, etc. However this has gradually changed - the idea has been disproven.

So now, the notion of many an atheist would be based on the fact that our modern, present-day science, simply explains everything. Now at this point, I'm trying to be blunt; so please don't get offended by any of this. This comes straight from myself. Anyway, yes, one can easily dismiss the world as part of this. But why the hell should humans know everything? We are not a million times more intelligent than the second smartest animal alive. Take, for instance, a chimp. Do you think it can do calculus? No. It simply can't. Do you think it can analyze graphs? Certainly not - it would dismiss it as some sort of odd drawing; the way we dismiss weird or unusual things as fantasy. Why? Monkeys simply aren't smart. In the same manner, we shouldn't be able to know everything. That means, our knowledge now of the universe is probably WRONG. Incomplete. Simply imperfect.

There are things the science community has yet to cover - paranormal activity, UFOs, some guy who did not eat or drink for 70 years, and the like.

Again, human scientific knowledge 10,000 years from now would be most likely different. That means yes, scientific knowledge nowadays is still incomplete. And I'm guessing humans alone may never be able to fully explain natural phenomena. When I mean "natural", I mean everything in the universe.

So, anyone willing to discuss this?

[zookeeper]

What's there to discuss? Whether today's scientific knowledge is incomplete or not? Yes, obviously it is incomplete, and equally obviously no one claims it isn't. So, really, what's there to discuss?

[Turambar]

There is nothing that can't be explained.  Going with the best explanation for things that have explanations and saying "i don't know" to the things that don't is, in my opinion, the best way to go about life.

[The E]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.


To be serious though, yes there are things not yet explained scientifically. Which is no wonder, no scientist worthy of the name would ever dare to proclaim that a field is completely known and understood.

Oh, and let me pick out the statement your "argument" is based on:

So now, the notion of many an atheist would be based on the fact that our modern, present-day science, simply explains everything.

This is, to be blunt, wrong. Atheists like myself believe that Science (or to be more precise, the scientific method) is the best way to further our understanding of the world around us. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is continual testing of "proven" theories, in order to either strengthen them, or to arrive at new, more complete theories.

You are arguing against a strawman, which is never a good start. Now I will grnat you that there are people who will repeat your claim word for word and be totally fine with it. That doesn't mean they are right. It just means that they haven't fully grokked the meaning of "Science", or fully understood how it works.

[NGTM-1R]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science.

[Retsof]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science.

Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it.

[The E]

Already mentioned in the first sentence quoted

[Mars]

In a way I suppose yes; there are phenomenon in the universe that we don't fully understand. Mostly however, there are things in our brains that we don't fully understand. People tend to worship some of those things like gods - much like people used to worship earthquakes or rivers. They are called spiritualists, or sometimes agnostics (though that word doesn't truly fit them.)

Just because something is currently unknowable does not make it supernatural. The very fact that it exists in the universe makes it very natural. Just because powerful forces that are currently not fully understood exists, does not make them deities. It was possible, when humanity was worshiping the products of plate tectonics, to be an atheist - one would only have had to say "I don't know what causes that" rather than "a god is causing that."

It is the same now as it was then.

[Bobboau]

So now, the notion of many an atheist would be based on the fact that our modern, present-day science, simply explains everything.

as a modern present day atheist, I call bull****, science WILL explain everything given enough time, it does not now, we are WELL aware of the fact that there are things it has yet to explain.

I find your insinuation of arrogance to be projective.

[watsisname]

The size of the Earth was first calculated (to very good approximation) ~2200 years ago.  (Eratosthenes, 2nd century BCE).

Less than 500 years ago people still argued between the heliocentric and geocentric model.  Very compelling evidence for the heliocentric model was found by Galileo in the early 1600s, but a proper proof that the Earth orbits the sun did not arise until the aberration of starlight was measured in 1728.

The origin of the universe wasn't known until less than a century ago.

The first extrasolar planet was discovered only two decades ago.

We still don't know what dark matter is.

Those are only a handful of points from the history of only one field of science.

So no **** science hasn't figured everything out yet.  If history has taught us anything, it may very well never.  Every time we solve one riddle, it's as if ten more pop out of the ether.  I can't even imagine what the future has in store for us.

Aside:  Interesting to have this discussion now -- just this afternoon I was walking through my university library, checking out shelf after shelf packed full of publications and articles from every imaginable subject, from the physics of high density plasmas to the petrology of some obscure part of  the world.  It's quite humbling to see how much knowledge we've accumulated.  Even a single field is so complex that no person could hope to understand all of it with even a lifetime of study.

[Mongoose]

Even a single field is so complex that no person could hope to understand all of it with even a lifetime of study.

Which is kind of depressing, if you stop and think about it.  It almost makes me jealous of the scholars who lived a good 400 years ago, when one person could pretty much learn everything that was known about the world at that time.

[Bobboau]

that was only possible because so little was known, I prefer this time, as even if you can't know it all that just means there is no end to what you can learn.

[Marcov]

as a modern present day atheist, I call bull****, science WILL explain everything given enough time, it does not now, we are WELL aware of the fact that there are things it has yet to explain.

I find your insinuation of arrogance to be projective.

"Insinuation of arrogance"?!

Look, here. You're missing the point. Simply because I say "the notion of an atheist would be to dismiss things as explained by science today" would not necessarily mean all atheists. To expect that I meant YOU would be just plain wrong. And yes, there ARE atheists nowadays, and MANY (but NOT ALL), who dismiss some unusual phenomena as just fake. For example, God isn't true (and, IMO God may not be fully provable, but God isn't fully disprovable either), ghosts are made up, parapsychologists are just plain insane.

On the other hand, a more reasonable "atheist" would rationalize their disbelief of these unusual phenomena as "not being proven yet". There are atheists that can be simply plain annoying, but there are also those who are smart enough to reason out why they do not believe in such things. There ARE atheists that can simply say "Jesus isn't real, he's a lie", etc. etc. etc. just as there are foolish Christians/Muslims/Satanists etc.

[Polpolion]

There ARE atheists that can simply say "Jesus isn't real, he's a lie", etc. etc. etc. just as there are foolish christians/Muslims/Satanists etc.

Not really. For example, I'm willing to say that there is no teapot orbiting the sun in the asteroid belt, and if you say I'm silly for asserting that, then it's you that's silly. It hasn't been proven and it hasn't been disproven, but in a world where very little is actually proven I'm willing to just assume that there is no such thing.

[The E]

but God isn't fully disprovable either

Provide proof.

No, seriously.

Because in order to be able to make blanket statements like that, you need to be able to back it up with something substantial.

Oh, and one more thing. If you want to start a discussion, it is customary to provide a point of discussion, some statement that can be argued for or against. What you did in your first post, and your second one here, is to simply state a known and accepted fact (to wit, that we haven't found scientific explanations or confirmations for a number of phenomena reported to exist). There can be no serious discussions about this, as both sides of the debate agree on this.

[karajorma]

There are things the science community has yet to cover - paranormal activity, UFOs

Have you considered that they might not have covered them because they simply do not exist? It is pretty arrogant to claim they must be true and that science simply hasn't covered them.

Keeping an open mind is good. Keeping your mind so open your brains fall out, not so much.

[Flipside]

With regards to UFO's, two quotes come to mind:

There is no hard evidence that Earth has ever been visited from space.

This ones interesting because science deals first and foremost with hard evidence.

and:

After I give lectures—on almost any subject—I am often asked, "Do you believe in UFOs?". I'm always struck by how the question is phrased, the suggestion that this is a matter of belief and not evidence. I'm almost never asked, "How good is the evidence that UFOs are alien spaceships?"

In essence, there are more stars than grains of sand on Earth, most of those stars have a large collection of orbital bodies. I see nothing about the Earth that makes us of particular interest to even one, let alone several alien cultures. We all watch Hollywood movies of Aliens 'coming for our water' or 'coming for our gold' and it's so much rubbish, there's plenty of places in the Universe that are far richer in any material available on Earth. As has been covered before, there's no such thing as stealth in space, and any extra-terrestrial visitor would not only be picked up by official sources, but also by the network of university and privately run sky-watching equipment scattered all over the planet. Such a situation could not be covered up.

Edit: To summarise, I can fully accept that Aliens are 'out there', it's the idea that Aliens are regularly coming here that I have problem with.

[BlueFlames]

Well, we probably all know of phenomena that have not actually been proven, tested, or perfectly explained yet...

We all watch Hollywood movies of Aliens 'coming for our water' or 'coming for our gold' and it's so much rubbish.

Yeah, nobody's been able to explain to me why Battlefield Earth was made either.

[Flipside]

Not to mention 'Cowboys and Aliens', a film that could have been awesome if it had actually taken a step back and realised that taking itself seriously was really out of sync with the title of the movie...

With regards to the thread, I suppose my point is that we just aren't as interesting as we think we are I'm not even going to touch on paranormal activity because it's such a horrendous myth-mash of cultures and beliefs.

[Bobboau]

you know, they could always come for our souls. space missionaries.