Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>>But this is not so good a point! This is just "promissory materialism":
>The other side of the coin is the small-minded vanity of saying,
>'I don't understand it, therefore it is not understandable; if I can't
>explain it, it must be supernatural.'
How about an overblown ego which insists "If it exists, there is a
naturalisitic explanation which I can understand."? Why can't science await
a truly credible explanation before criticizing other people's expectations?
Both sides could be accused of following a God of the gaps. As naturalistic
explanations are found, theists must revise their religion (not a bad
system), and as naturalistic explanations reveal more complexity and
unexplained phenomina, science must revise it's theories. (The same excellent
system some theists use.) Only an agnostic suspects neither side will reach
any final, ultimate truth.