Excuse me, but "desperate grab" at "some kind of mysticism" sounds pretty rude. I think it's much more reasonable to view this attitude as based on past experience. Maybe someday it will make sense to close the patent office because everything has already been invented, but it didn't work out the last time it was tried.
But suppose it's true. Sit down and consider it a little. What would that mean about who believes it versus who doesn't? Religious scientists, like Francis Collins, wouldn't "need" the belief and wouldn't have it. Especially given that it is a "desperate grab." Atheistic scientists, would "need" (ugh) the belief and would be more likely to have it.
Do you really think that's true? Only atheist scientists believe gathering knowledge about the physical world can go on forever, religious scientists (at least half of all scientists and probably more) think it's limited and we'll have to stop at some point?
Second. But that the task is completable--that it is finite--that has to be true, or else there is no point or purpose to learning anything.
??
It is not possible to learn every song. Even if you had a prodigious memory and knew every language, there are new songs being written all the time. Therefore there is no purpose to learning a new song?
It is not possible to view every painting. Yada yada there are new paintings being made all the time. Therefore there is no purpose to viewing any painting.
It is not possible to see every dance, every play, every movie; it is not possible to learn every language, read every book, hike every trail...
Why does a task have to be complete-able for doing part of it to be worthwhile?
If partial understanding weren't worthwhile nobody would ever *start* to learn everything, because partial understanding is all you can achieve in any kind of reasonable time frame. Heck I got a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and only achieved a partial understanding of the field.
no subject
But suppose it's true. Sit down and consider it a little. What would that mean about who believes it versus who doesn't? Religious scientists, like Francis Collins, wouldn't "need" the belief and wouldn't have it. Especially given that it is a "desperate grab." Atheistic scientists, would "need" (ugh) the belief and would be more likely to have it.
Do you really think that's true? Only atheist scientists believe gathering knowledge about the physical world can go on forever, religious scientists (at least half of all scientists and probably more) think it's limited and we'll have to stop at some point?
Second. But that the task is completable--that it is finite--that has to be true, or else there is no point or purpose to learning anything.
??
It is not possible to learn every song. Even if you had a prodigious memory and knew every language, there are new songs being written all the time. Therefore there is no purpose to learning a new song?
It is not possible to view every painting. Yada yada there are new paintings being made all the time. Therefore there is no purpose to viewing any painting.
It is not possible to see every dance, every play, every movie; it is not possible to learn every language, read every book, hike every trail...
Why does a task have to be complete-able for doing part of it to be worthwhile?
If partial understanding weren't worthwhile nobody would ever *start* to learn everything, because partial understanding is all you can achieve in any kind of reasonable time frame. Heck I got a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and only achieved a partial understanding of the field.