A reply to More Faith

Steve, not too much to add. Just this:

"the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered."

Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it? Granted, there are some questions -- "What is the meaning of life?", for example -- that are philosophical in nature, and as such, seem ill-suited for testing by the scientific method. However, I don't see what one gains by simply stating we should "leave the question unanswered." It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.

But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.

You are certainly within your rights to say that the only important questions are the ones that science can answer, but it would be naive to think you could ever persuade the majority of people on this point. People want answers to these questions and they aren't going to (and can't, I suspect) stop asking them simply because a scientist says they're unimportant.

By the way, this is an interesting idea to consider when pondering the question of God's existence, as well as your statement about "test[ing] the God idea - to run the 'paternity test' for the Universe."

I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?

I'm not sure I have the answer, or even that there is an answer. Very interesting question, though.