Ref: the Kip Thorn quote, is this really true? Science seeks to explain the unknown in terms of the known, while relleno seeks to explain the known in terms of the unknown. Here is cross-purpose if ever there was. And yet, because theology is a discipline with no observable subject matter, therefore by definition no theological question can be scientific. Hence science cannot even ignore theology! Theology simply does not obtain. What are you talking about, WilliamFleming? Of course Science is materialistic! This is because science is predicated upon empirical observation, which is by definition observation of the material world. I defy anyone to describe a non-material science!

@AaronAgassi I think that where religion attempts to explain the whys of nature that there is a conflict with science. But that’s not all there is to religion. I see religion as a way of life and as a collection of artistic expressions, not as an explanation for all of nature.

If you read about modern physics, especially quantum gravity theory, you learn that time, space, and matter as we experience them are illusions. A particle of matter is not a thing but an event. There are no things, only relationships.

Carlo Rovelli writes great books about quantum gravity theory.

@WilliamFleming (in order to not fall into the "evolution is just-a-theory trap)
AFAIK, there is no **quantum gravity theory" (hypostheses,ideas ?). There are attempts to combine quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, and general theory of relativity into Unified theories.

@WilliamFleming A "work in progress" is not a (scientific) theory

[scientificamerican.com]

@FearlessFly Wikipedia speaks of it as a theory:

“On the other hand, the other three fundamental forces of physics are described within the framework of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, radically different formalisms for describing physical phenomena.[2]“

However you define a theory, materialism is not science but philosophy, and has been widely discredited.

WilliamFleming: The distinction between what is apparent and accessible to the senses and what can be inferred indirectly, whatever metaphorical substance casting he proverbial shadow, is all important. But here all of that is diversionary. Unless one assumes a deliberate creation, then there can be no reason why the universe exists or exists as it does. Atheistic science can only investigate happenstance and mechanistic causality. Whereas meaning is created in the mind and in society.

The entire thrust of my rebuttal as posted on Oct 30, 2019 remains unanswered.

@AaronAgassi The question of the validity of a materialistic philosophy is not diversionary. That is a major part of the article. I don’t think reality is in any way apparent and accessible to the senses. Nothing that we experience in the physical world is anything but our own nervous system. Our entire vision or view of reality is nothing but symbolic and has only indirect association wit ultimate reality beyond. A map of Texas is not Texas. It is nothing like Texas except in grossly general aspects.

You can assume the existence of a creator, or you can assume that the universe just sort of popped into existence by accident. Neither assumption is helpful or meaningful from a cosmic perspective. One is as valid as the other but neither one sheds any light at all. That’s why I keep saying that the most rational response to reality is total bewilderment. There is nothing to be believed or disbelieved.

Scientists might be atheists but science itself should not be atheistic. Scientists who are driven by the true spirit of science are open minded and curious about all concepts and they do not limit themselves to atheism and certainly not to happenstance and mechanistic causality. Nearly all of the truly creative and eminent physicists of modern times have opined about a higher power or intelligence.