==There is a lot more than that that is not discovered yet. It is possible the reason behind it are smurfs, angels, gods, demons, the tooth fairy or any one of the other personalities that we have all heard about from our ancestors.
You can also take a look at the entire domain of physics, chemistry, biology and see what has already been discovered. Have scientists even encountered a case where the reason behind a phenomenon has been determined to be one of those personalities?
Nope.
COMMENT: This is the kind of anti-religion rhetoric that –even as an atheist – drives me crazy. Theologians (and religious believers generally) do not believe that the gaps of science can be explained by these pejorative “personalities” assigned as equivalent to “God,” as rationally defined by religion. To my knowledge, SC in particular has never subscribed to such things. Rather he (or she) has pointed out (here) the “existential crisis” that often accompanies a rejection of Mormonism, and has embraced repeatedly (it seems) what he (or she) has called “Einstein’s God,” as a personal response to that crisis, while citing numerous prominent scientists that seem to agree with such a view. (Criticisms from Board members, including myself, notwithstanding)
Moreover, your second objection is also misplaced. The fact that science has not “discovered” that any existing phenomena can best be explained by assuming “supernatural personalities” has absolutely nothing to do with theology, which is by its nature a metaphysical construct, as are ultimate explanations in science. Science has not “discovered” the ultimate “reasons” behind *any* experiential phenomena; including “reasons” behind its own theoretical constructs, like, quarks, multiple universes, superstrings, or any number of other “entities” of science.
_________________________________________________________
In the past, lightning was believed to be caused by some god that was angry. I think it was Zeus in the Greek religion.
Science replaced that with "It is because matter is made of atoms which are made of electrons and protons and basically lightning is static electricity and it can reach 10 MV or so.".
Diseased was believed to be caused by gods or demons. Now we know that diseases can have a genetic basis (mutations), bacteria or virus infection, yeast or some other pest.
COMMENT: O.K. So science has corrected religion in the past. SCIENCE HAS ALSO CORRECTED SCIENCE! SCIENCE IS A TOOL TO CORRECT FALSE BELIEFS, WHATEVER THEIR SOURCE. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL THAT ALL OF RELIGION WILL EVENTUALLY BE DISPLACED BY SOME ALTERNATIVE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION, ANY MORE THAN IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL OF SCIENCE WILL EVENTUALLY BE DISPLACED BY BETTER SCIENCE. SO, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? (Sorry for shouting)
_______________________________________________________
Slowly, science has been replacing the "that personalities did it!" with actual explanations that are observable and predictable.
COMMENT: Not really. Has science explained consciousness, morality, human freewill, or the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of intelligence? Science has been working on these problems, more or less, for centuries and has so far come up empty. The *intractability* of these questions--not just their current scientific status--is often what motivates religion—including for several well-established scientists!
____________________________________________________________
I was a christian. I dumped it early on. I recognized early on that all religions are faulty and should be sent back to the manufacturer for repairs. But the warranty is out and they don't want to repair it and they want me to just trust them.
COMMENT: Of course, what you personally decide to do and believe is your business. But your understanding of the science-religion debate is suspect. Consider this quote from the well-respected cosmologist-astrophysicist, Frank Tipler, whose religious beliefs are not based upon faith, but science!
“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, Page ix)
Now, I do not agree with Tipler’s theory, but I have at least read the book, and understand that it is, in fact, scientifically and mathematically based -— upon the materialist and reductionist principles revered by science. Moreover, I have read the criticisms and reactions to it in the scientific community, some very harsh (mostly the professional skeptics) and some supportive of at least the underlying science, while rejecting the religious component. (See David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._TiplerWhat is important here, is that however one views Tipler's statement and theory, or the statements of many other scientists who attempt to reconcile religion and science, one should pause before dismissing religion as per se archaic, unscientific folly in all its forms and varieties.
________________________________________________________
Bottom line, you have to explore reality for yourself and decide what is true for yourself. I can discuss things with you if you want.
COMMENT: Your whole response here, even if there is some validity to your criticisms, is unjustifiably condescending and distorted for reasons noted.