Quote Originally Posted by Polymirize
We actually prefer the term philosophy, but then again, it's important to realise that labels never really capture their targets anyway. So go ahead and call it bullshit if you want. Here's the part of your logic that I have trouble following: We should only accept what science can verify for us, and at the same time, jumping ahead to think that science explains everything. The great strength of science is that it's free to change its mind whenever data suggests that it should, but that doesn't mean I can't take it with a grain of salt when science claims it has all the answers. I've heard that before, many times throughout history. I don't believe psychics or televangelists either, although I don't know why I'd link you all together.
I guess I think all notions of morality/god/spirit, or whatever you want to call it arise from that space that comes into being when we realise that we'll never KNOW. Because absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. There could be something more fundamental than strings and governed by still deeper natural laws, couldn't there? Averages don't exactly yield absolutes do they? Closer and closer approximation but no limit. Empiricism is a castle made of sand.
I guess it's all bullshit after all.
if modern science claimed to know everything, they wouldn't still be studying the universe, now would they? i don't see any reason why we couldn't know everything one day. that's not to say that we will, or that it's even likely, but there's no reason to rule it out.