Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shanna wrote: It rings my alarm bells that exploitative people like Jim Bakker and Robert Tilton have latched onto and promoted this philosophy.It also from a christian perspective reduces prayer from intercessory (which is bad enough) to a kind of making an order to room service, a little degrading to god...
I also have a problem with the flipside of positive(good) people get good stuff (or their cosmic order filled), it's bad people get bad stuff, it's a blame the victim, and it reduces compassion because they must deserve what they got. A spiritual meritocracy, makes me what to vomit, and it's already a strong presence in christianity
.."
I tend to agree with much of that, but, I think that there is a lot of 'stuff' out there that we know little or nothing about, yet things happen.
While we can dismiss most of this 'stuff' as baloney, until science tells otherwise, I don’t think we can dismiss all of it. Whether is be cosmic ordering or similar, or even the stuff Uri Geller promotes.
After all, his spoon bending has never been explained. The magic circle has many times, tried to replicate what he does, and has not make a very good job of it. Even tests under laboratory conditions have not been able to explain how he does what he does.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: It rings my alarm bells that exploitative people like Jim Bakker and Robert Tilton have latched onto and promoted this philosophy.It also from a christian perspective reduces prayer ..."
Actually, Uri Geller is considered a bit of a dirtbag by the magic community and has been debunked and denounced by several magicians.
Don't have a link available, but Penn Jillette has talked about it several times on his podcast and I think even in one of his books.
Otherwise, I do agree there is a lot of stuff out there we don't know all about.
My list is more UFOs, lake monsters and mothmen.
Hp wrote: it is possible that the big bang derived from nothing. .Can you then explain, what nothing is and how the big bang derived from it. That to me suggests that anything is possible.
Hp wrote: Because you asked "Ok give me a better explanation than a creator? Or part of one if it is not complete." after I'd given you a list of theories which may well go some way to explain our universe (even if they are incomplete).
Again that is not an answer, it’s just a bunch of theories which may or may not have any credence. One of the theories may explain our universe but maybe none of them will.
If we were to compile a top ten of ideas that may explain the universe, the science theories would take up positions ten through to two, but the number one idea would be a creator.
Hp wrote: Well a creator only creates so I assume that after creating this creator just left us to our own devices leaving the universe with 13.7 billion years of struggle resulting in life forms fighting for 3.5 billion years to exist in a competitive world.
Yes , but he gave us science to figure things out.
.Hp wrote: Where 99.999% of all life forms are now extinct. So I don't think any creator thought too much about it's creation.
So if mankind is just another life form it’s time must also be limited and science may never find the answer.
Hp wrote: Give science a few years and I believe we may reach the Technical Singularity and who knows what will happen then.
A doubt a few years. 2045 was suggested but that is very optimistic and anyway look what was predicted about a big brother society and how that has turned out.
Hp wrote: Homo-sapiens have been around some 250,000 years - give us another 249,700 and you might be surprised. But of course you won't be around so who cares?
Precisely.
Hp wrote: But there is science that goes before:
Yes and it is based on several assumptions. Well so is the idea of a creator.
.Hp wrote: How so?
Because most wars are and were NOT started because of religion.
Travis wrote: I do agree there is a lot of stuff out there we don't know all about.My list is more UFOs, lake monsters and mothmen..."
...and what if only 'one' of the hundreds of Conspiracy theories out there were true.
cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: it is possible that the big bang derived from nothing. .
Can you then explain, what nothing is and how the big bang derived from it. That to me suggests that anything is possible. "
I saw this exchange and decided to ask a real astrophysicist! Well, I didn't ask the question; it was already asked and answered. I'm really sort of digging the NASA/Ask an Astrophysicist page.
Check it out! But, sit down first. It will make some smile, but it will likely come close to making others spontaneously combust!
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask...
Can you then explain, what nothing is and how the big bang derived from it. That to me suggests that anything is possible. "
I saw this exchange and decided to ask a real astrophysicist! Well, I didn't ask the question; it was already asked and answered. I'm really sort of digging the NASA/Ask an Astrophysicist page.
Check it out! But, sit down first. It will make some smile, but it will likely come close to making others spontaneously combust!
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask...
cHriS wrote: "I tend to agree with much of that, but, I think that there is a lot of 'stuff' out there that we know little or nothing about, yet things happen.While we can dismiss most of this 'stuff' as baloney, until science tells otherwise, I don’t think we can dismiss all of it. Whether is be cosmic ordering or similar, or even the stuff Uri Geller promotes.
After all, his spoon bending has never been explained. The magic circle has many times, tried to replicate what he does, and has not make a very good job of it. Even tests under laboratory conditions have not been able to explain how he does what he does"
"that there is a lot of 'stuff' out there that we know little or nothing about, yet things happen."
Like the big bang? and Evolution?
And "until science tells us otherwise"?
Then why credit it to a mystical force at all, why not just say "I don't know" and wait for science to inform us (or better yet employ scientific method and find out for yourself) of it's actual nature. And then why after attributing it to a "mystical" or creator force assume we know what the force wants of us or that it wants anything, that failure or success to meet those wants will result in anything, let alone punishment of any kind or reward. For which we must "rescue" the rest of humanity whether they are willing or not...
And that also brings us back to the god of the gaps, as science explains more and more the "space" for god gets smaller and smaller, when will theists decide the left over space is too small to contain a god of any consequence...
James Randi debunks Uri Gellar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...#!
And as an aside Smoking openly on TV I wonder when they decided that was not on...
Shannon wrote: It will make some smile, but it will likely come close to making others spontaneously combust! "
Nice one Shannon, he says smiling :)
What was before the big bang, is where science and the belief in a creator come together.
Whereas I am content to settle for the creator choice, I do understand that others will want to find any other choice that does not involve a creator.
Unfortunately time is not on their side, so they will never know.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: It will make some smile, but it will likely come close to making others spontaneously combust! "
Nice one Shannon, he says smiling :)
What was before the big bang, is where scienc..."
Time is not on your side either cHriS just because you have made a choice to settle (interesting word choice by the way) for a creator, doesn't mean you "know", and are by extension correct...
Shanna wrote: "James Randi debunks Uri Gellar..."
I have watched James Randi on tv in the past and he can do a 'bending a spoon trick' and maybe all Geller is, is a clever magician. But,if that is so then no one has worked out how Geller does it.
On thing magicians don't like is not knowing how a trick is performed. The magic circle is where magic tricks are disclosed and discussed.
Put Randi and Geller side by side and there is no comparison, Randi will struggle to match what Geller does. Randi is able to show how the trick 'could' be done and that is not the same as doing it. If you like to look at it another way, Randi is fooling us just as well as Geller may be fooling us.
Telekinesis is something else that was big some years ago but we don't hear much about it anymore.
I know what you mean about the smoking thing, I think it must have stopped when the advertising was banned.
Shanna wrote: Time is not on your side either cHriS just because you have made a choice to settle (interesting word choice by the way) for a creator, doesn't mean you "know", and are by extension correct... ..."
The word 'belief' is good enough, I don't need to know, so time is on my side, I know the answer. That may seen strange but it is the only thing we have. Other than just not to think about it.
Science will not find an answer, I'm sure of that, so you either go with the 'creator' or the other choice 'I don't have an answer'.
Put it another way... you give me another choice and I will think about it.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Time is not on your side either cHriS just because you have made a choice to settle (interesting word choice by the way) for a creator, doesn't mean you "know", and are by extension c..."You can't know the answer you have "settled" on an option. Belief is not the same as knowing.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: "James Randi debunks Uri Gellar..."
I have watched James Randi on tv in the past and he can do a 'bending a spoon trick' and maybe all Geller is, is a clever magician. But,if that i..."
Randi doesn't need to replicate the trick Uri does...
The fact that Uri could not replicate his "abilities" under controlled conditions and scrutiny debunks him. Without the ability to "set up" the trick, actions that are extraneous and undermining to what he claims his abilities can do and would expose him were he to perform under scrutiny, he was impotent.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Time is not on your side either cHriS just because you have made a choice to settle (interesting word choice by the way) for a creator, doesn't mean you "know", and are by extension c..."You haven't really found an answer, you've just decided the question was too hard or would require waiting and gave up.
You just stop asking the question.
and I agree with Shanna that 'settled' is an interesting word choice.
Seems a bit 'Freudian slip-ish'.
Crikey, Hp, you've got some sauce. (Yes, I actually did that.) I figured you'd leap on "trendily atheistic", not the throwaway "server-sapping" bit.Your view that I haven't contributed anything is no more valid than me saying the same thing to you. Because I can honestly say you haven't contributed anything that has convinced me you are right. Though, as I assiduously attempted to point out, neither have I, neither COULD I, and neither could anyone else. It's not that straightforward a subject.
Now, if you want to start a debate where we can find an answer that satisfies most of us, perhaps you might want to go with "Would you rather live in a world with chocolate or without?" I nearly went with water, but felt an urge to keep it at least a little bit light.
Who in their right minds would want to live in a world without chocolate?
Anyone who chooses religion over science, science gives us technology and leads discovery, and so without science we wouldn't have the understanding and technology with which to change the cocoa bean into chocolate.
I like your thinking Hazel! ;)
Linda wrote: "Who in their right minds would want to live in a world without chocolate?"That debate would be a page long, as we would all stop posting to hunt down and kill the one person who said 'without'.
Nearly 5 years of this debate and the past 4 posts have probably been the most harmonious sequence so far, even if it is a tiny bit off-Topic. (The use of "Topic" isn't a pun by the way.) For the record, I'm with the pro-chocky people too.
Michael wrote: "Nearly 5 years of this debate and the past 4 posts have probably been the most harmonious sequence so far, even if it is a tiny bit off-Topic. (The use of "Topic" isn't a pun by the way.) For the..."I think one of the reasons this thread hasn't crashed and burned is that we don't always stay on topic, or that the topic encompasses so many ideas and sub-topics that there's always something to talk about. don't like one topic, there's 14 more over there to chat about instead
Where else can you go from quantum physics to Hindu culture to Richard Dawkins to European history to the films of Sean Bean?
I doubt it's happening on the '50 Shades of grey' discussion thread.
Shanna wrote: You can't know the answer you have "settled" on an option. Belief is not the same as knowing. It can be.....
According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all of the above conditions are met. Gettier proposed two thought experiments, which have come to be known as "Gettier cases," as counterexamples to the classical account of knowledge. One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he also has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Jones's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job." (see[7] p. 122.) These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true by virtue of luck. In other words, he made the correct choice (in this case predicting an outcome) for the wrong reasons. This example is similar to those often given when discussing belief and truth, wherein a person's belief of what will happen can coincidentally be correct without them having the actual knowledge to base it on.
Shanna wrote: Randi doesn't need to replicate the trick Uri does...He does, if he is claiming that Geller is no more than a magician and that he, Randi can replicate the trick.
Either Randi can do the trick or he can't.
Shanna wrote:The fact that Uri could not replicate his "abilities" under controlled conditions and scrutiny debunks him. Without the ability to "set up" the trick, actions that are extraneous and undermining to what he claims his abilities can do and would expose him were he to perform under scrutiny, he was impotent.
.."
And that would be why Geller could not do it because he would need to "set up" the trick. But that opens another question about the many other times he has bent spoons on live television, including the BBC.
Travis wrote: and I agree with Shanna that 'settled' is an interesting word choice.Seems a bit 'Freudian slip-ish'...."
An interesting word in the context it was used.
I don't know any more than you do if there is a god or not. But as I said to Shanna ….. give me another choice and I will think about it. But she did not. :(
Michael wrote: "Nearly 5 years of this debate and the past 4 posts have probably been the most harmonious sequence so far, even if it is a tiny bit off-Topic. (The use of "Topic" isn't a pun by the way.) For the..."not a pun...... nor was the one about the little old lady, who every Monday morning gave her postman a box of hazel nuts, saying that her son buys them on a Saturday for her but they are to hard for her to bite into.
After some months the postman asked her why she did not just tell her son that the hazel nuts were to hard and she replied...
"well dear, although I can't bite into the nuts I do like sucking the chocolate off them".
Linda wrote: "Who in their right minds would want to live in a world without chocolate?"It depends on the question. Is the choice between chocolate and no chocolate? In that case, only those allergic to chocolate could reasonably want to live in a world without it. On the other hand, if you asked me whether I would rather live in a world without chocolate or a world without vanilla, I would choose no chocolate in my delicious vanilla-flavored world.
I love chocolate but IT need to stay away from the temptation, not allowed.
Abdelmajeed wrote: "i think the question is in a logical trap !that likes to ask: "Would you rather live in a world without your eyes OR without your hands? "
you know that the life consists of three parts; things, ..."
Why does religion always want to call dibs on thinking and imagination?
The first seems to be something religion shouldn't be promoting and the second seems unneeded for something as 'real' as I'm told an invisible guy that can bend the laws of physics to his whim is.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: You can't know the answer you have "settled" on an option. Belief is not the same as knowing. It can be.....
According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does ..."
So a middle school math word problem is what you are using as your new defense of the creator belief...?
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: and I agree with Shanna that 'settled' is an interesting word choice.Seems a bit 'Freudian slip-ish'...."
An interesting word in the context it was used.
I don't know any more than..."
Actually I do know more than you about there being no god.
Not a speck of evidence for god.
While you gripe about not enough evidence from science, some is still more than none.
I know there is no god, while believe there is.
So, I must know more.
Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: You can't know the answer you have "settled" on an option. Belief is not the same as knowing. It can be.....
According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in w..."
Could not think of another choice.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: and I agree with Shanna that 'settled' is an interesting word choice.Seems a bit 'Freudian slip-ish'...."
An interesting word in the context it was used.
I don't know any more than..."
Why after your complaint about defining your words :) would I do it again? I think cHriS that you are quite capable of selecting your own words...
Personally from your statements and discourse here I think your choice of settled is appropriate, I just think it reveals something about your choice of a creator that is not active but passive, "settled" is not usually used as a adjective in a positive manner, it's is neutral or negative, something you do when your actual goals and desires are frustrated.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Randi doesn't need to replicate the trick Uri does...He does, if he is claiming that Geller is no more than a magician and that he, Randi can replicate the trick.
Either Randi can ..."
And Randi did do it.. the key at least.
It's not the live TV that was the important scrutiny here, afterall magicians do "live" tricks all the time, it was the not being able to access the props being withheld from him and his people and the scrutiny of Randi, who was not credulous and knew what to look for.
Shanna wrote: "settled" is not usually used as a adjective in a positive manner, ..."'not usually' but sometimes, maybe?
set·tle (stl)
v. set·tled, set·tling, set·tles
v.tr.
1. To put into order; arrange or fix definitely as desired.
2. To put firmly into a desired position or place; establish.
That seems reasonably positive, don't you think?
Shanna wrote: It's not the live TV that was the important scrutiny here, after all magicians do "live" tricks all the time, it was the not being able to access the props being withheld from him and his people and the scrutiny of Randi, who was not credulous and knew what to look for. .."I agree, but then you must apply the same thinking to dozens of other tv shows where Geller has bent spoons under the same type of scrutiny.
Also Randi is a magician and scientific sceptic, so it would be reasonable to assume that he is looking to disprove Geller and that is fair enough. He has even written a book about Geller cashing in on Gellers success.
But it is not as simple as all that. The elephant in the room here is that Randi is not able to bend a spoon as a magician, in a way that could replicate Geller bending spoons.
As I have said before he shows how it can be done but never does it.
I could tell you how to bake a chocolate cake, but I doubt you would want to taste it if I tried to bake one.
I've seen an average bloke bend spoons in the same way as geller, and then explain how its done. Gellers an arsehole, why is he being discussed?
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: "settled" is not usually used as a adjective in a positive manner, ..."'not usually' but sometimes, maybe?
set·tle (stl)
v. set·tled, set·tling, set·tles
v.tr.
1. To put into ord..."
Not how you used it (or I interpreted them) contextually... especially as "Whereas I am content to settle for the creator choice, I do understand that others will want to find any other choice that does not involve a creator." does not imply you are doing either of those things ordering stuff or establishing something
Phrasal Verbs:
settle down
1. To begin living a stable and orderly life: He settled down as a farmer with a family.
2. To become calm or composed.
settle for
3. To accept in spite of incomplete satisfaction: had to settle for a lower wage than the one requested.
Idiom:
settle (one's) stomach
To relieve one's indigestion or nausea
This is how I took it, Especially as you have said numerous times that science is taking too long to give us the actual answer..
Shanna wrote: To accept in spite of incomplete satisfaction: had to settle for a lower wage than the one requested.This is how I took it, Especially as you have said numerous times that science is taking too long to give us the actual answer..."
If you took it that way, that's ok. I'm happy with that.
Using that example, most people would ask higher, knowing the offer will be lower, but lower is not bad, lower can be ok.
Science does not have an answer and it will not have one for a long long time, if ever and maybe never.
If you loaned me a couple of thousand pounds (or $)and I said I will repay you in eighty six years, would you be happy to wait? You could add three zeros to the 86 and science may still not have a answer.
Yes I will settle for the 'creator' option, I have to there is no other. Unless you know of one. :)
Hazel wrote: I've seen an average bloke bend spoons in the same way as geller, and then explain how its done. Gellers an arsehole, why is he being discussed? Good, can you tell me and Shanna how this average bloke did it the same way as Geller does it, which will be better that the way Randi tried to do it and failed.
'arseholes' win the lotto and some even govern the country.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: To accept in spite of incomplete satisfaction: had to settle for a lower wage than the one requested.This is how I took it, Especially as you have said numerous times that science i..."
Yes honesty, "I don't know" is just fine too.
If I had to wait for your loan to be returned is it helpful and honest for me pretend you are making payments because it makes me feel better? are those imagined comfort payments then real? and will my landlord accept them as rent? Should I insist my bank accept them as currency and is that currency more valuable than my neighbours and must he believe that I am receiving them... and should there be an exorbitant punishment for failure to believe that you are repaying me?
Shanna wrote: and should there be an exorbitant punishment for failure to believe that you are repaying me? ."
:) .... but the scenario did not suggest any payments or interest. The proposal was, you lend the money and get it back in 86 years.
In other words it is unlikely that you will be here in 86 years so why would you agree to it? Any more than I can sit back and wait for science to explain.
You don't believe there is a creator and that is fine, so you just have to sit back and wonder what it's all about .......... or not.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: To accept in spite of incomplete satisfaction: had to settle for a lower wage than the one requested.This is how I took it, Especially as you have said numerous times that science i..."
Stuff happens and there is nobody making it happen, we just lucked out.
Same option I keep mentioning that you keep ignoring.
You only seem willing to settle for an explanation if it also provides a purpose or shows there is a plan.
I don't wonder what it's all about, because I know. Our little rock won the cosmic lottery.
Travis wrote: Stuff happens and there is nobody making it happen, we just lucked out. Same option I keep mentioning that you keep ignoring..."
Who created the creator?
Who made the stuff for it to happen?
Stalemate.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Stuff happens and there is nobody making it happen, we just lucked out. Same option I keep mentioning that you keep ignoring..."
Who created the creator?
Who made the stuff for it ..."
Not really, as there is no evidence or reason for there have been a 'who'.
The stalemate comes from you not able to accept any answer without a 'who'.
if in your mind there has to, must be, no two ways about it be a purpose/reason/grand design than of course there can be no other answer.
Than it's a stalemate in the same way trying to talk to a child that has his fingers in their ears going 'nah-nah-nah!' is a stalemate.
Or the argument sketch from Monty Python.
One Act Play.Open on a dark street (for "dark" substitute "unenlightened" if it please you.) Two characters approach, one in a lab coat and one in a dog collar - mock if you like, but the next bit is easier and I'm the one typing it. They approach and face each other.
Lab Coat: There's no God, suck it up!
Dog Collar: You can't know that for sure, suck that up!
Lab Coat: Right.
Dog Collar: Right.
Lab Coat: Wanna go for a drink?
DOg Collar: OK, but I'm the Christian, first round's on me.
Lab Coat: Yeah, feel smug when I explain the bubbles in your beer.
Dog Collar: Ha ha.
Lab Coat: Ha ha.
They wander off to their mutual appreciation of each other's differences. Fade to grey, roughly the same shade as the debate's area.
You're welcome. If you want to be.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: and should there be an exorbitant punishment for failure to believe that you are repaying me? ."
:) .... but the scenario did not suggest any payments or interest. The proposal was,..."
Neither does the reality we live in, but you are content to make up an explanation or accept someone else's because it makes you comfortable so why can't I have imaginary payments. The problem comes when I insist to others they are real and that they must subscribe to their reality, and there are consequences for not subscribing.
Shanna wrote: so why can't I have imaginary payments. Well, you can't have imaginary payments; the scenario was mine to illustrate a point, so if you then start changing my scenario you will be changing the point of it. :)
Shanna wrote: The problem comes when I insist to others they are real and that they must subscribe to their reality, and there are consequences for not subscribing.
It's best if you suggest rather than insist.
Michael wrote: OK, but I'm the Christian, first round's on me...."I'm not to happy with that line. :)
Travis wrote: 'who'."Who, what, why, where, when. It's just easier to say 'who'.
If you are happy with the idea that there could be a creator then I am happy that your 'stuff' just happens.
But while you say "there is no evidence or reason for there have been a 'who".
I have to come back with "there is no evidence or reason that 'stuff' just happens.
Travis wrote:Than it's a stalemate in the same way trying to talk to a child that has his fingers in their ears going 'nah-nah-nah!' is a stalemate.
Correct, a stalemate is a stalemate, no one wins.
So, now you are saying you've been using who when you also meant all those other words as well...?Like with settled, I think you are backpedaling on your word choice.
You have always used who, so this last minute 'Oh, but I meant...!' seems more than a bit weaselly.
and, again, you have no evidence for a who, but I have evidence for stuff happens, because stuff happens and it keeps happening, every minute of every day.
Stuff happening is how the world works.
So, I have evidence, now as to reason, not so much, but again, like with who, you are the one claiming there's a reason. Stuff happens, doesn't requitre one because...well, stuff happens and if it happens just right, you end up with lifeforms that evolve enough to debate it on the internet.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
So in this long drawn out debate you haven't contributed anything - just paraphrased the "server-sapping extent of this debate so far".
You say "But, there's a missing part that intellectually and even emotionally is not properly filled by Science alone" but that is purely an emotional aspect of our humanity (and I'm not sure how "intellectually" fits in there). The problem I see is that there is no evidence whatsoever that this gap really exists.
Perhaps it's just an evolved survival need to feel love and an awful lot of people do not get what they desire. They then make up a loving creator (which sometimes goes on to supposedly care about their creation) to fulfil this need. Who knows? This is something we will never know.
But science is always what we know about our world. It has to be! It has to explain in a way we humans can understand the evidence we experience for the world around us.