@Norvu: Yes, that's what I was saying. Atheists labelling religion silly on grounds of interpreting it as some sort of scientific misunderstanding suck, because they are ignorant. Crazy religious people claiming evolution is BS because the bible states otherwise suck a whole lot more, because they don't even understand their own freaking religion.
As for the going into churches issue: Well, I live in central Europe. 90% of the churches around here are very impressive works of art, so you miss out on that if you refuse to go into churches. And when you're in a church, I think you should be aware that you're a guest. No matter my beliefs, as long as I'm inside a church, I try to act respectful.
Atheists labelling religion silly on grounds of interpreting it as some sort of scientific misunderstanding suck
Well, it's silly on the grounds that it's made-up and based on beliefs in things that have never been verifiably observed or documented in all of history.
*Sigh* We're moving in circles here. I know professors of physics who are Christians, and the Vatican is not some strange animal that will die out in the next years. That's why I gave you that story that the Vatican *admits* that the Christmas story is entirely made up - to underline that that is *not* what it's all about. Theologists are nothing like a stupid creationist fundamentalist who believes that the world is flat. None of you have ever studied theology or philosophy. Things science tries to explain and things religion tries to explain do *not* overlap, those are entirely different categories. Saying "I don't believe in God, I believe in science" is like saying, "I don't like apple pie, I prefer 64bit processors". If you want to criticize creationists, scientific methods are fine, because it's a scientific debate. If you want to criticize religion as such, you're on the philosophical level, which is somewhere completely different. Thus, a criticism of religion as such should be more like this guy's works, and not just a simple "but it's all made up". Where am I fallacious when I claim that religious writings might not have the purpose of a scientific or historical report, but something else? You people don't even go beyond science or try to understand philosophical implications, you just go "made up" and end the discussion.
And once again: I'm not Christian, I consider myself a nihilist. I just cannot agree with taking it all to the scientific level and denying the possibility of there being any other qualities than the (obviously fallacious) scientific one.
To do the "flamewars"-category justice: You people don't know shit about theology, philosophy or the history of the church, thus you would do well to remain silent.
To do the "flamewars"-category justice: You people don't know shit about theology, philosophy or the history of the church, thus you would do well to remain silent.
Things science tries to explain and things religion tries to explain do *not* overla
They do every single time a claim regarding the real world is made by religion. The moment a claim is made, that claim is subject to scrutiny. In the face of a total lack of evidence, these claims are rejected by intelligent people.
You people don't know shit about theology, philosophy or the history of the church,
Having spent the early part of my life in a Catholic school, not to mention having generally studied Western history throughout my life, I do in fact know quite a bit about these topics. I note that the incorrect and stupid things said in this thread were not posted by me. ^_~
Merry, religion is not philosophy. Religion claims that there are consequences for not believing, and it requires suspension of disbelief in common sense principles.
Where you are fallacious:
I know professors of physics who are Christians
Appeal to authority.
Vatican is not some strange animal that will die out in the next years
Affirmation of the consequent.
Theologists are nothing like a stupid creationist fundamentalist who believes that the world is flat.
Creationism is a part of theology -- in fact, Christians even argue that every society on Earth has a creation story, therefore it must be true. The two can't be separated.
Where am I fallacious when I claim that religious writings might not have the purpose of a scientific or historical report, but something else? You people don't even go beyond science or try to understand philosophical implications, you just go "made up" and end the discussion.
The purpose of philosophy is enlightenment; the purpose of religion is restriction in the name of arbitrary purity. They are not the same thing.
I just cannot agree with taking it all to the scientific level and denying the possibility of there being any other qualities than the (obviously fallacious) scientific one.
You criticize us, but then you try to use philosophy to prove that science is fallacious? Um, you're an idiot.
To do the "flamewars"-category justice: You people don't know shit about theology, philosophy or the history of the church, thus you would do well to remain silent.
Religion claims that there are consequences for not believing, and it requires suspension of disbelief in common sense principles.
While this is true for most modern Western religions, it isn't true for every religion. The classic counter-example is ancient Greek/Roman paganism. Sure, they might force people to sacrifice to state gods, but officials could really care less if people 'believed' in them. There are also many modern Jews to observe traditional Jewish customs (e.g. staying kosher, recognizing holidays, etc.) without necessarily believing in an all powerful God. Their beliefs don't make them not Jewish.
The classic counter-example is ancient Greek/Roman paganism. Sure, they might force people to sacrifice to state gods, but officials could really care less if people 'believed' in them.
If no one actually believed in it, then it's more a collective myth (like Santa Claus) and not really a religion.
There are also many modern Jews to observe traditional Jewish customs (e.g. staying kosher, recognizing holidays, etc.) without necessarily believing in an all powerful God. Their beliefs don't make them not Jewish.
These Jews are atheists. Not believing does in fact make them not "Jews" in a religious sense. They remain "Jews" only in a cultural sense, which is very different. I think Penn was complaining a while ago about how there aren't different words for cultural/racial Jews and religious Jews.
There is definitely a problem for us atheist Jews. Our culture and ethnicity is tied to a religion. Many of us do not actually believe in the myths of the religion, but we still identify with our common heritage. All of the words we have to define ourselves have additional connotations that communicate the wrong message. We need some new word, or at least a new adjective, to identify the people who are culturally, but not religiously, Jewish.
How many atheist Jews are there? If there are not that many, you could call yourselves the Fews.
There are actually a scary amount. Well, the amount scares the observant Jews.
Among the various religious groups, 76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Jews said they are "absolutely certain" there is a God while 93 percent of Christians who describe themselves as "Born Again" feel certain God exists.
Oh mans, I got owned. But I feel more misunderstood than anything.
I know professors of physics who are Christians
Appeal to authority.
Congrats, you found the fallacy. But I mentioned it more to illustrate that science is not the point, which is really all I want to claim.
Vatican is not some strange animal that will die out in the next years
Affirmation of the consequent.
They survived the last 2000 years, they are not going to vanish right now. There were times like this before, you know. But the future of the Vatican is beside the point anyway.
Theologists are nothing like a stupid creationist fundamentalist who believes that the world is flat.
Creationism is a part of theology -- in fact, Christians even argue that every society on Earth has a creation story, therefore it must be true. The two can't be separated.
I object. First of all: no, creationism is not part of theology. That's why I brought up the example with the official position of the Vatican on the Christmas story in the bible. Have you ever met someone who has a degree in theology? I've met a few, and there was no creationist among them. In fact, they all made very clear that creationists are stupid. And before you get me with 'appeal to authority' again: I'm using this as a source underlining that creationism is not part of theology. On that note: where did you take the information that creationism is part of theology from? You just state it, I can at least refer to a source. Furthermore: "Christians argue" is a very misleading expression, for it implies that all Christians have the same opinion on this issue. This is not the case. (I've brought up enough counter-examples so far, I think)
Where am I fallacious when I claim that religious writings might not have the purpose of a scientific or historical report, but something else? You people don't even go beyond science or try to understand philosophical implications, you just go "made up" and end the discussion.
The purpose of philosophy is enlightenment; the purpose of religion is restriction in the name of arbitrary purity. They are not the same thing.
You can claim that. Can you back it up? Thinking about the meaning of life and the existence or nonexistence of a free will are part of both philosophy and theology. And you're right: the two are not the same thing, nor is theology to be confused with religion. I did not claim that they are the same thing, I merely stated that they have implications that overlap each other. Call it interdisciplinary, if you will. And about restriction on the grounds of arbitrary purity: Everyone does that all the time. I, for one, dislike lying, and I will avoid it. Most people think that fucking animals is perverted. This is completely arbitrary, and based solely on your own views on moral, which are not god-given or logic-given (because logic doesn't give, it just leads from one thing to another).
I just cannot agree with taking it all to the scientific level and denying the possibility of there being any other qualities than the (obviously fallacious) scientific one.
You criticize us, but then you try to use philosophy to prove that science is fallacious? Um, you're an idiot.
You are an idiot, for you did not read my sentence before flaming it. I never said science was fallacious. Throughout this thread, what I am trying to explain is that science does not cover every aspect of our lives. Or let me rephrase that: If we have something like a free will (which can be neither proven nor disproven), the decisions we make with that are not described by science. Science describes the physical world as it is, but it does not give it any kind of value, nor does it judge anything. That's what humans do. Therefore, there are aspects of life where science does not belong, and therefore, criticizing religion solely on the grounds of science is always incomplete. That's all I claim.
To do the "flamewars"-category justice: You people don't know shit about theology, philosophy or the history of the church, thus you would do well to remain silent.
OK, as I am at home now and have time to write something without being bothered by people showing up and wanting me to actually do work, I will once again try to boil my issue down to what I want to say, because I feel this didn't quite get across.
Things I am saying: 1. There is more to life than science covers. 2. As there is more to life than science covers, criticism of any specific religion or religion as such can never be complete if science is all that shows up in it. 3. As there is more to life than science covers, there are also issues that cannot be solved by looking at them scientifically.
I am not trying to defend religion, I am merely remarking upon the fact that science won't be enough to label it stupid and irrational. This is, as should be obvious, not equal to a claim stating that science is fallacious or that religion is in any way supernatural and beyond human comprehension.
If you see anything else in what I've written so far, it is either you seeing things, me poorly expressing myself (I'm German, sue me), or me accidentally strawmanning myself. Or funeral firing, whatever expression you prefer.
I object. First of all: no, creationism is not part of theology.
Are you kidding? You're kidding, right? Creationism surely isn't a subset of science; it's not a subset of philosophy, either. The only place where it's found is in religious text, and it's a definitive part of religion, your anecdotal evidence about these mysterious anti-creationist theologians aside. Creation can't be done without a creator, and that has pretty heavy theological implications.
You can claim that. Can you back it up? Thinking about the meaning of life and the existence or nonexistence of a free will are part of both philosophy and theology. And you're right: the two are not the same thing, nor is theology to be confused with religion.
I guess I don't have to prove it, since you agree with me.
Most people think that fucking animals is perverted. This is completely arbitrary, and based solely on your own views on moral, which are not god-given or logic-given (because logic doesn't give, it just leads from one thing to another).
Here you delve into some silly equivocation. Aversion to animal-fucking, if that's the scientific term we're going to use, wasn't instilled by a higher power or decided by logic, but it can be explained scientifically. It's a human behavior derived through evolutionary processes, buried instinctually and reinforced socially. It's pretty simple psychology -- not deep magic.
You are an idiot, for you did not read my sentence before flaming it. I never said science was fallacious.
You are an idiot. You used "falllacious" as the antecedent to "scientific one," indicating that use of the scientific method to analyze religion is flawed.
Or let me rephrase that: If we have something like a free will (which can be neither proven nor disproven), the decisions we make with that are not described by science. Science describes the physical world as it is, but it does not give it any kind of value, nor does it judge anything. That's what humans do. Therefore, there are aspects of life where science does not belong, and therefore, criticizing religion solely on the grounds of science is always incomplete.
Your brain is a machine. That's all it is. It's a very complicated one, but it's just making Turing decisions. I'm tiring of your metaphysical bullshit -- you assume that because something is too complex to measure quickly that it is somehow mystical.
"Science doesn't give the world value" is just silly -- of course it does. We use the scientific method to weigh beneficial decisions against bad ones, to decide what resources are valuable. Do we really have to resort to the old Plotinian logos argument about whether a soul exists separately form the body? I mean, isn't that where you're going with your argument that there's "more to life" than science?
If we have something like a free will (which can be neither proven nor disproven)
I point out that merry_minstrel is conflating religion and philosophy. There is a major and important difference.
Science asks about things that could possibly ever be observed. Philosophy asks about things that we believe cannot possibly be observed. Religion asks about everything.
Science only makes claims based on what has actually been observed. Religion makes claims based on things that have never been observed. Philosophy makes no claims.
I object. First of all: no, creationism is not part of theology.
Are you kidding? You're kidding, right? Creationism surely isn't a subset of science; it's not a subset of philosophy, either. The only place where it's found is in religious text, and it's a definitive part of religion, your anecdotal evidence about these mysterious anti-creationist theologians aside. Creation can't be done without a creator, and that has pretty heavy theological implications.
Hah. That's why I had the second post, because I wanted to get the discussion back on where I want to go. Just because you say there is a creator, it doesn't mean you take the words of the bible literally, every single word. No respectable theologist does that. Furthermore, theology and religion are not the same. Religion is belief for common people, theology is on a higher level, because theologists actually discuss things logically.
Here you delve into some silly equivocation. Aversion to animal-fucking, if that's the scientific term we're going to use, wasn't instilled by a higher power or decided by logic, but it can be explained scientifically. It's a human behavior derived through evolutionary processes, buried instinctually and reinforced socially. It's pretty simple psychology -- not deep magic.
The things religion forbids are not just arbitrary, either. In most cases, you can see where it came from historically. Also, it doesn't matter if it comes from evolution, or is arbitrary or whatever. It's origin does not give it value or quality. You would have to prove first why acting like 'evolution tells you to' is the right thing to do.
You are an idiot. You used "fallacious" as the antecedent to "scientific one," indicating that use of the scientific method to analyze religion is flawed.
I now see where you misunderstood me. I wanted to say that if you take what's written in the bible and interpret it like it was a scientific report, the result is plain and simply wrong, no matter how you look at it. I'm having a hard time here expressing what I think, so cut me some slack. Like I said - sue me, I'm German.
About science not assigning value to things: No, it does not, you heard me correctly. If I do this, that will happen. That is what science tells you. You may interpret that what will happen as disastrous, but science does not tell you whether it is or not.
And about you being tired of my 'metaphysical bullshit': Either you see the universe as deterministic, then everything is fated, and every choice you make is not your own but comes out of particles colliding. Or you do have a choice, which gives you the ability to judge between good and bad and take your own path. Either way, you'll have to pretend you're a free thinking individual.
Now to you, Rym of Geeknights: I know the difference between religion and philosophy. And I am also not trying to state an absolute truth here. All I really want to point out is that there is also the 'way of life'-aspect to religion, therefore before religion is labelled stupid as a whole, not only must it be discussed on a scientific level, but also on all other levels that are left after that. Also, saying it's based on those weird views about how the world was created may be a little rash. Let me explain: That would mean that someone just came up with some weird story, and everyone else looked at it and took a moral out of it. However, could it not be the case that moralic and 'scientific' parts of religion emerged simultaneously, in a sort of process where they both influenced each other?
As to the original point, many dedicated atheists were at one time dedicated Christians. Returning to church even for a non-religious reason can easily open up old wounds and unleash painful memories. Saying that atheists are afraid to go into a church isn't entirely correct, although certain fears may be involved.
I'd like to contend that assumption. What does science not cover?
Science would have trouble telling you why a good TV show was emotionally moving. It could tell you that when the pixels on the screen were arranged in a certain combination, certain chemicals were released within the bodies of a set of test subjects that were not released when a control pattern of pixels were placed on the screen, but it couldn't tell you about honor or regret. Science can only study the mediums involved, the chemicals, the pixels, not the message being transmitted through those mediums. A common mistake is to assume that if a tool is good for one thing, it is good for everything. Thus Darwinism and its merits lead to social Darwinism and its flaws.
In general, most of these science vs. religion debates aren't useful because they devolve into scientism vs. fundamentalism arguments. The people who are most reasonable (those you'd really want to hear talking about the subject) by their very nature are less rabid and less partisan, and thus less visible.
I'd like to contend that assumption. What does science not cover?
Science covers everything as it makes the admition that it may not know everything yet and is always learning. I'm just dropping by to see what all th fuss is about so don't bother spending too long trying to refute my point, I won't read it.
Science would have trouble telling you why a good TV show was emotionally moving. It could tell you that when the pixels on the screen were arranged in a certain combination, certain chemicals were released within the bodies of a set of test subjects that were not released when a control pattern of pixels were placed on the screen, but it couldn't tell you about honor or regret. Science can only study the mediums involved, the chemicals, the pixels, not the message being transmitted through those mediums.
You are assuming that just because we can't explain a phenomenon currently, that it is impossible. It sounds like you believe that it is impossible to predict the actions of a complex system not because the scientific model is flawed, but because there is some magic ether which can never be quantifiably observed. Emotions are just the emergent by-product of a complex system, heuristics that we biological lifeforms use to analyze chemical cascades within our nervous system. The idea that there is some metaphysical plane of existence that lifeforms require an interaction with is unfounded and absurd.
Current scientific theories do not explain everything in our universe; the scientific method is a tool which if used properly can explain everything.
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. In this sense I am too religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not mean 'forever ungraspable'. But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural'.
No, science does not try to explain things in the sense of giving reasons. The scientist makes observations and builds a model around it, then he uses this model to make predictions. Then he compares what actually happens with his predictions and adjusts his model, so he can make more accurate predictions in the future. Science is about the how, not the why. Furthermore, there is no longer a scientific consensus that the world is deterministic. That was 100 years ago. Random (or seemingly random) events have their place in physics. Also, calling something laughable will not make it go away.
Again: Science will, at best, tell you what is going to happen. It does not judge whether that is a good or a bad thing. That's where science doesn't reach and never will reach, because that's not its purpose. This has nothing to do with any mystical entities or magic, that's just what you interpreted into it.
And whatever one thinks on god and religion: Never mix philosophy and science. Science is allowed to do a lot more than philosophy.
I just want to point out something. A lot of people go around saying "Haha! Science can't explain this one!" While there are phenomena for which we have yet to decipher every detail, if you were to actually study science you might become scared at some of the things that have been figured out, as much as anything can be figured out. Take for example this experiment in which scientists were able to create out of body experiences in people consistently. No longer is the out of body experience some unexplained supernatural experience that can only be achieved through some sort of spiritual meditation. It is now a well understood neurological phenomena.
The scientific process has allowed us to observe and understand far more about this universe than most people realize. We've got a lot of big questions left to answer, but most people would be shocked if they realized just how many things have been answered already. I think if a lot of people actually bothered to study science, they will be shocked to find out just how much is known.
Comments
As for the going into churches issue: Well, I live in central Europe. 90% of the churches around here are very impressive works of art, so you miss out on that if you refuse to go into churches. And when you're in a church, I think you should be aware that you're a guest. No matter my beliefs, as long as I'm inside a church, I try to act respectful.
Where am I fallacious when I claim that religious writings might not have the purpose of a scientific or historical report, but something else? You people don't even go beyond science or try to understand philosophical implications, you just go "made up" and end the discussion.
And once again: I'm not Christian, I consider myself a nihilist. I just cannot agree with taking it all to the scientific level and denying the possibility of there being any other qualities than the (obviously fallacious) scientific one.
To do the "flamewars"-category justice: You people don't know shit about theology, philosophy or the history of the church, thus you would do well to remain silent.
Where you are fallacious: Appeal to authority. Affirmation of the consequent. Creationism is a part of theology -- in fact, Christians even argue that every society on Earth has a creation story, therefore it must be true. The two can't be separated. The purpose of philosophy is enlightenment; the purpose of religion is restriction in the name of arbitrary purity. They are not the same thing. You criticize us, but then you try to use philosophy to prove that science is fallacious? Um, you're an idiot. I do. Want to go head to head?
Bravo. That was excellent.
Furthermore: "Christians argue" is a very misleading expression, for it implies that all Christians have the same opinion on this issue. This is not the case. (I've brought up enough counter-examples so far, I think) You can claim that. Can you back it up? Thinking about the meaning of life and the existence or nonexistence of a free will are part of both philosophy and theology. And you're right: the two are not the same thing, nor is theology to be confused with religion. I did not claim that they are the same thing, I merely stated that they have implications that overlap each other. Call it interdisciplinary, if you will.
And about restriction on the grounds of arbitrary purity: Everyone does that all the time. I, for one, dislike lying, and I will avoid it. Most people think that fucking animals is perverted. This is completely arbitrary, and based solely on your own views on moral, which are not god-given or logic-given (because logic doesn't give, it just leads from one thing to another). You are an idiot, for you did not read my sentence before flaming it. I never said science was fallacious. Throughout this thread, what I am trying to explain is that science does not cover every aspect of our lives. Or let me rephrase that: If we have something like a free will (which can be neither proven nor disproven), the decisions we make with that are not described by science. Science describes the physical world as it is, but it does not give it any kind of value, nor does it judge anything. That's what humans do. Therefore, there are aspects of life where science does not belong, and therefore, criticizing religion solely on the grounds of science is always incomplete. That's all I claim. Bring it on :]
Things I am saying:
1. There is more to life than science covers.
2. As there is more to life than science covers, criticism of any specific religion or religion as such can never be complete if science is all that shows up in it.
3. As there is more to life than science covers, there are also issues that cannot be solved by looking at them scientifically.
I am not trying to defend religion, I am merely remarking upon the fact that science won't be enough to label it stupid and irrational. This is, as should be obvious, not equal to a claim stating that science is fallacious or that religion is in any way supernatural and beyond human comprehension.
If you see anything else in what I've written so far, it is either you seeing things, me poorly expressing myself (I'm German, sue me), or me accidentally strawmanning myself. Or funeral firing, whatever expression you prefer.
"Science doesn't give the world value" is just silly -- of course it does. We use the scientific method to weigh beneficial decisions against bad ones, to decide what resources are valuable. Do we really have to resort to the old Plotinian logos argument about whether a soul exists separately form the body? I mean, isn't that where you're going with your argument that there's "more to life" than science? I don't have to disprove it, due to the burden of proof. If you think you can prove you have free will, then go ahead. Meanwhile, I'll be resting on my laurels -- and on the cognitive research showing the decision-making center of the brain is about the last part to know what the subconscious has decided to do. Free will be damned.
It's already been brought-en.
Science asks about things that could possibly ever be observed.
Philosophy asks about things that we believe cannot possibly be observed.
Religion asks about everything.
Science only makes claims based on what has actually been observed.
Religion makes claims based on things that have never been observed.
Philosophy makes no claims.
Note the bolded part.
Furthermore, theology and religion are not the same. Religion is belief for common people, theology is on a higher level, because theologists actually discuss things logically. The things religion forbids are not just arbitrary, either. In most cases, you can see where it came from historically. Also, it doesn't matter if it comes from evolution, or is arbitrary or whatever. It's origin does not give it value or quality. You would have to prove first why acting like 'evolution tells you to' is the right thing to do. I now see where you misunderstood me. I wanted to say that if you take what's written in the bible and interpret it like it was a scientific report, the result is plain and simply wrong, no matter how you look at it. I'm having a hard time here expressing what I think, so cut me some slack. Like I said - sue me, I'm German.
About science not assigning value to things: No, it does not, you heard me correctly. If I do this, that will happen. That is what science tells you. You may interpret that what will happen as disastrous, but science does not tell you whether it is or not.
And about you being tired of my 'metaphysical bullshit': Either you see the universe as deterministic, then everything is fated, and every choice you make is not your own but comes out of particles colliding. Or you do have a choice, which gives you the ability to judge between good and bad and take your own path. Either way, you'll have to pretend you're a free thinking individual.
Now to you, Rym of Geeknights:
I know the difference between religion and philosophy. And I am also not trying to state an absolute truth here. All I really want to point out is that there is also the 'way of life'-aspect to religion, therefore before religion is labelled stupid as a whole, not only must it be discussed on a scientific level, but also on all other levels that are left after that.
Also, saying it's based on those weird views about how the world was created may be a little rash. Let me explain:
That would mean that someone just came up with some weird story, and everyone else looked at it and took a moral out of it.
However, could it not be the case that moralic and 'scientific' parts of religion emerged simultaneously, in a sort of process where they both influenced each other?
That's about the third (independent) time today I've heard "conflating." I like it. ^_^
In general, most of these science vs. religion debates aren't useful because they devolve into scientism vs. fundamentalism arguments. The people who are most reasonable (those you'd really want to hear talking about the subject) by their very nature are less rabid and less partisan, and thus less visible.
I'm just dropping by to see what all th fuss is about so don't bother spending too long trying to refute my point, I won't read it.
Current scientific theories do not explain everything in our universe; the scientific method is a tool which if used properly can explain everything.
Furthermore, there is no longer a scientific consensus that the world is deterministic. That was 100 years ago. Random (or seemingly random) events have their place in physics.
Also, calling something laughable will not make it go away.
Again: Science will, at best, tell you what is going to happen. It does not judge whether that is a good or a bad thing. That's where science doesn't reach and never will reach, because that's not its purpose. This has nothing to do with any mystical entities or magic, that's just what you interpreted into it.
And whatever one thinks on god and religion: Never mix philosophy and science. Science is allowed to do a lot more than philosophy.
The scientific process has allowed us to observe and understand far more about this universe than most people realize. We've got a lot of big questions left to answer, but most people would be shocked if they realized just how many things have been answered already. I think if a lot of people actually bothered to study science, they will be shocked to find out just how much is known.