This kind of 'Yes it is'....'No it isn't'...arguments could go on forever.
Yes, it could. Science, therefore, proceeds from a point of only accepting that which can be measured, accurately predicted, and then checked by the general consensus against the prediction. That gives the proceedings of science if not an objective validation then at the very least a validation that attempts to eliminate individual subjectivity so far as is possible.
If you want your 'yes it is' to stand up against science's 'no it isn't' then you need something more than just the claim, you need a mechanism by which your claims can be validated.
I am of the view that our existing knowledge of evolution, chemical reactions etc. is only meant to explain mechanisms. They don't explain causes.
You'd need to justify the claim that there is some 'cause' at the base of all this that is not itself an effect of a prior cause. You are assuming that there is an 'intent' some 'purpose' being imposed on all this from outside somewhere, but you have not offered any justification for that beyond your own dissatisfaction with the other explanations.
Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.
Except that a car will run quite happily without a driver; you can build - and indeed we have built - vehicles which navigate themselves, which propel themselves and determine their own course.
We have enough hints from scientific theories themselves (see OP) to form hypotheses about probable causes.
Except that we don't - you have a collection of fringe areas of science into which you're trying to replace the genuine 'we don't know that extent yet' with 'therefore woo'.
That is my point.
That's not a point, it's a fallacy.
You can try this also... https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
That religion persists is not necessarily testament to religion having any correct answers, but could equally be the product of religion's tendency to offer answers that are liked rather than answers that are valid. Your point also fails to address the massive disparity in retention of significant religious belief between developing and developed nations; your presumption is that because some places have technologically developed religion should have died out across the world.
Failure of Science
Most people are significantly disappointed with science? Really? On what are you basing that?
I'm not sure I'd accept that many people thought that science was going to 'easily' explain everything. Science has not 'failed to integrate' claims of 'why we are here', because so far there is no basis to think there is a reason for science to investigate. We are here, science has offered the outline of a basis by which this came to pass - with, admittedly, some gaps. In that explanation there is no requirement for a 'purpose', no need for a 'reason'.
Science is, though, despite your claim, starting to address the basis for things like aspirations and morality.
And as to the idea that science can't give an easy to understand explanation for everything - why would you presume that there is one?
It is like blind men who have never heard of an elephant, touching an elephant in different spots and putting their individual ideas together to get a picture of the whole. They end up with a picture of a tree with a snake hanging on it and a boulder next to it. Hardly a meaningful picture!
But still a better explanation than 'there's a noncorporeal sentience manifesting here, but you can't see or hear it, it has no discernible effect on the elephant, but you have to accept that it's real because I'm not happy with your level of detail'.
There is a vacuum.
No, there's space around the edges of current science because science isn't finished yet. What you do is not 'give up' on science because it hasn't produced a complete picture in 200 years, you keep doing science because it continues to be our best methodology. If you have another methodology, bring it along, but bring it alongside the incredibly successful scientific method.
Secular spirituality is the obvious answer to fill this void.
Arguably, yes, it's superficially suitable, but it tends to suffer from the same fundamental problems as the religions that came before it - there's no validity to the claims, there's no justification, there's just 'this makes me fell nice'.
And unfortunately, due to the authority yielded (sic.) by science over the last few centuries, mainstream scientists still tend to have significant influence over society.
Unfortunately? Because of that scientific influence we have improvements in medicine, communication, transport, food production, hygiene and a wealth of other areas. That science, and the findings of science, have crowded out the more overt influences of religion in at least some areas of the world is to be lauded, not derided.
Evolution involves qualities such as a need to survive, need to replicate & procreate, need to protect ones progeny, rise of complexity and fitness.
No, evolution doesn't involve a 'need' to survive, it requires an ability to survive, and then selects for that ability.
Evolution is usually ‘explained’ through random genetic variations and Natural Selection. Natural Selection is a ‘catch all’ term that doesn’t really explain anything at all.
All I can say is that you've manifestly failed to understand natural selection.
Any property that we observe in inorganic or organic compounds that cannot be explained through a direct understanding of its constituent parts, is termed its ‘Emergent Property’. It is just a label.
Not that I accept the claim, but for argument's sake let's accept this; how does this differ from 'god did it' or 'spirit' or 'magic'. These aren't explanations, these are claims to some unchallengable, uninterrogatable 'other' to close down investigation; they are then appropriated by gatekeepers who make the 'answer' sacred and sacrosanct, and the veneration of ignorance becomes shackle holding humanity to the unknowing, unquestioning past.
And the rest appears a rehash of what I already criticised at the start of the thread. You're not bringing anything to the table, you're just claiming that science is somehow not enough, asserting without a basis that your claims are of something somehow beyond science's capacity because 'spirit' and then dribbling woo all over everything. You have no methodology, you have no basis for your claims, and you have a limited understanding of the science that you're criticising.
As a basis, just as a start point: you keep saying that there is something about the human condition that is 'beyond science'. Given that anything which manifests an effect in the physical world in which we operate can be investigated with the scientific method, what exactly is it about humanity that you think is beyond science?
O.
