Kellerman

Hmm...you don't seem to be understanding my central point, but I'll assume that's on me and not on you. 

11 hours ago, romansh said:

You seem to not be addressing my points Kellerman. Do you have a diminutive for Kellerman?

The point I appear to be struggling to make is: for many if not most Christians the minimum belief is that Jesus was the son of god and that he was crucified and died for our sins. These, of course, are not essential beliefs for Progressive Christians.

As far as I can tell, the minimum belief for a Progressive Christian, seems to be a belief  that fellow called Jesus, possibly apocryphal, and had some useful insights on how to live.

But all this is a digression from the topic.

 

 

 

No, no diminutive. I've somehow managed to avoid them my entire life. 

To relate what I'm saying back to the topic at hand though, all "facts" exist within a context and are subject to interpretation. 

So even if the vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, there are enormous variations in how that is interpreted and what that actually means for any given person interpreting it at any given time. 

Its the same with scientific facts. One of the things I do is disabuse medical professionals of the myths that they are sold in the name of "evidence based medicine" where "facts" have been interpreted to support clinical approaches, when in reality, those "facts" have been divorced from their contexts. 

My area of scientific research was so specialized that even fellow scientists in my exact same discipline couldn't understand it. Unless they studied the exact same subject for years, their only understanding of what we did was in how we explained it. 

Sure, the objectives measures were available for anyone to see, but why we measured the way we did, why we categorized the way we did, why we analyzed the way we did, that was all up for interpretation. 

A lot of science is just that, a collective agreement as to how to collect and process certain information. But there is a fair amount of subjective human judgement that goes into a lot of that, which influences the interpretation. 

No information just exists in a purely objective vacuum. Not science and definitely not religion. 

So sure, "Jesus died for our sins", but what does that even mean? The interpretation of what sin is can be so unbelievable broad, and typically has been heavily influenced by political convenience of the time. Meanwhile, there are perfectly valid interpretations of sin that don't even describe it as an individual failing, but more as a collective capacity for destruction. 

An even more radical interpretation is that sin is the source of suffering, but that suffering isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact, it's a crucial part of life, and that Jesus suffered to demonstrate divine suffering. That it's not so much forgiveness as enlightenment when we are able to connect to Jesus' experience. 

A western puritanical lense likes to cast it that we're a bunch of dirty, sinning dirt pigs who will never be good enough, no matter how hard we try, and the only way to be clean enough to enter heaven is to be forgiven for our horribleness by God, and that Jesus had to suffer immensely to compensate for our fundamental moral grossness. 

But that lense isn't necessary, nor is it universal. 

Also, just because a western version of Christianity crushed almost all eastern Christianity historically through conquest, doesn't mean it's the most valid interpretation. 

Again, context matters. There's a historical context as to why the majority of Christians may have been taught to interpret scripture a certain way. 

There's also a historical context as to why science is taught a certain way. A dear friend is an expert in cognitive bias in scientific measurement. His entire career involves picking apart the way things are supposedly "objectively" measured, which is mostly based on how things were done historically.

Kind of like the scientific measurement version of keyboards, which historically were designed to be as inefficient for typing as humanly possible for the purposes of slowing typists down so that the units wouldn't jam. And yet, in a world where fast typing is so valuable, we still use this historical, purposefully inefficient design. 

The world of "facts" is filled with these historical artifacts of judgement and approach. Which in turn influences how facts are gathered, and then those facts are interpreted through the lense of context of the time in which they are evaluated. 

The statements "Jesus died for our sins" and "the comet is X length and will come X miles close to earth" are far more similar than they seem on the surface, but once you start breaking down all of the historical and contextual factors that influence why those statements are made the way that they are, it becomes self evident that they are both subject to an enormous amount of historical and current interpretive factors. 

3 hours ago, romansh said:

  

This is fair enough, but I would argue evangelicals would not consider progressives as Christians. Even Episcopalians look worriedly askance at the likes of Spong.

First principles ... we take a look at the world around us, the universe even, from the very small to the very large and get a sense of what reality might be, bearing in mind we never get to see it directly. 

Quite possibly. Do they deny its existence? And if so, can they call themselves Christian in any common sense of the word?

If by this you thought I meant all of it then I would agree with you. If you think I meant the vast majority then, I don't agree with you.

There are Christians all over the world, many, many, many of which are not evangelicals. 

There is a huge range of Christian beliefs and shockingly little consensus, especially when viewed through a global and historical perspective. 

Many Christians wouldn't consider most evangelicals to be Christian. I personally look pretty sideways at any Christian who promotes intolerance of other humans. 

36 minutes ago, romansh said:

So the whole of Christianity is predicated on "a shaky concept".

Why are so many Christians attached to some literal interpretation of this shaky concept? Would we not be better off going back to first principles observing the world and moving on from there?

Well, there is no "whole of Christianity", so how would you propose going back to first principles?

There are Christian organizations that don't put any emphasis on original sin. So there are groups that have "gone back" and moved on from there. 

There are so many types of Christians out there, it's impossible to say where Christianity as a whole is off base. 

10 minutes ago, Fastguitars said:

As i stated...

You are a product of your "church", as you are defining what you say is wrong regarding what im teaching, based on what you have been taught.

So, you are become, what you are defining me to be.

Now, i explained that i am not a denomination.   You do not hear me talking about my church or what my church says, as im not that person.

Im not what my church told me to tell you, and that is why, i only quoted what Jesus said...

"how do we know that is what Jesus said, said the skeptic"?, which is the same as me telling the Atheist,....."you can't prove that God does not exist'.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you. 

But to be absolutely clear, I'm not trying to convince you to believe anything, or say that what you believe is wrong. 

I'm saying that *I* don't hold the same beliefs and that a lot of other Christians don't hold them either. But we're still Christians. 

You don't get to dictate what Christians have to believe, but you are 100% entitled to believe it yourself. 

Feel free to respond, but I won't be responding anymore on this matter. I've been as clear as I humanly can be. 

55 minutes ago, Fastguitars said:

 

Isn't your point of view based on what you are describing as why i have mine?

"fastguitars, you believe what you believe based on what you have been taught to believe".

Well, Kellerman, welcome to yourself, as what you believe is based on your group, and your point of view is consistent with those you classify as your "church".

As for me, im not a part of denominational thinking. 

Why is that?  Its because Christianity is not a religion, and Denominations were not created by Christ or by the Apostles.

Denominations are the work of MEN, who decided that "their opinion" was going to be the rules and regulations that defined THEIR Denomination., and so, they are defining your point of view, which you think, is you own point of view.

Not quite.

 

So, setting the traditions of men aside, and all the POV that create religious POV, let me just just say this...

Jesus is real.  He died on the Cross.  He came out of the Grave.   And He said that "No person comes to the Father by by ME".

If this is not true, then there is no reason not to keep believing what your particular "church" teaches, which is...>"your opinion is truth, and all truth is relative".

I'm not the one trying to dictate some form of "truth" about what Christianity is to you though. 

I'm only sharing what my Church teaches as an example that Christianity isn't always a consistent monolithic message even though they use the same Bible. 

I'm not trying to convince you to believe what I believe, but you are trying to dictate that what you believe is the one truth that all Christians must believe. 

Sure, Jesus existed, but at the end of the day, you've read about him in a book written by people, and interpreted by people, and people are deeply fallible, and tremendous capable of interpreting the exact same things in wildly different ways. 

My whole point is that neither of us should have the hubris to try and dictate to others what the "truth" is. 

But you seem determined to try and tell me what my faith should consist of. 

Well...you can try. 

Sorry, autocorrect must have corrected Rom to Ron.

As for not caring and spirituality not being compatible, that's actually the *only* way for me that they're compatible. 

Like you, I can't resolve a spirituality that actually makes any damn sense, so it's only in letting go of trying to make any sense of it can I tap into any sense of spirituality. 

I feel *something*, I have no idea what it is, it might be a brain tumour, who knows, I don't really care because it doesn't matter.

So yeah, agnostic, sure. My church makes space for that, we even have an openly atheist minister. That why I like my church, so that's why I identify as a Christian. 

I'm also Jewish, which also makes space for agnosticism and atheism, and makes space for us to shrug and say "we cannot possibly understand this, we just follow the rules". I'm none too fond of the rules though, which is why I'm just an ineffectual Jew, but I did always love that it was always okay as a Jew to have no clue what the heck was going on. 

As for my Church "begging the question", I have no idea what you mean. The church has an 8 page document outlining their position, and it starts with something along the lines of God is holy mystery, wholly unknowable. 

I like it. It works for me. 

1 hour ago, Fastguitars said:

Well, its like i just told someone else.

If Jesus didnt rise from the dead, then you have a point.

However, if He did come out of the grave, and He did..... then you have a problem that you can't solve by analyzing it, or speculating about it.

Tell me, where do you get your certainty as to the "facts" of God's will?

Did human beings who are equally certain of said "facts" teach you this? Because I wasn't taught by such certain, "factual" clergy. 

If you and I traded upbringings, you would probably be the one who had more vague notions of faith and I might be berating strangers on the internet that their version of faith is "factually" wrong. 

Who knows. That's one of the most fascinating parts of studying religion. The inability to separate out faith from social conditioning. 

1 hour ago, Fastguitars said:

You said that your church does not place emphasis on Christ being the only way to God, based on the Cross.

So, if that is not the center of your church's doctrine, then can you tell us what other way or means your church teaches that a person can place faith in that will cause God to give them the new birth?  (born again)?

My church has a very, very abstract doctrine, and doesn't fuss too much about any "factual" details of the Bible. 

My church teaches of God as unknowable, not as a discrete being with a specific will, but as a larger concept of the interconnectedness of all living things. 

However, it doesn't really matter what my church teaches, I'm not trying to preach anything. 

My point is ONLY that YOU don't get to dictate what Christianity is. You are entitled to believe what you believe, entitled to preach what your particular version of Christianity claims to be the truth, but Christianity is not a monolithic belief system. 

There are different types of Christians all over the world with vastly different beliefs and moral systems. You don't get to define what they should believe. 

You don't have to agree with my church, but you also don't get to invalidate them. My church is not some obscure fringe, it's one of the oldest and largest Christian institutions in my Country. They have as much claim to Christianity as any. 

You've been taught what you've been taught, and you are entitled to believe it, but don't for a second assume that others aren't entitled to a different interpretation of what it means to be Christian. 

You don't own that. No one imbued you with the power to own that. 

Ron, I've already told you that if you want to consider me an agnostic, then go ahead. Please stop arguing with me that you think I'm agnostic, I'm perfectly fine with the label. 

Like the facts/theories/information conversation, it's largely semantic. I truly don't really care. 

And yes, I can tell that you and I are highly aligned in our thinking, but that we approach it semantically differently, which is also perfectly fine by me, but you seem determined to convince me of something, which you really don't need to convince me of, because I already largely agree with you except in the most abstract and truly not important of terms. 

21 minutes ago, romansh said:

Well as a partially retired scientist ... this would depend a lot on what we mean by fact.

If for example the precipitation of a metal increases with pH then this in a very broad sense is a fact.  You could repeat it the experiment in your laboratory. Generally this type of experiment can be repeated with such precision we can generate tables of solubility products. This appears to be a fact. Now of course apply the solubility products outside of their intended systems can be problematic and we find solubilities may deviate. This is where we might start to hypothesize.

Sure, we functionally engage with information as factual, but there's a reason there are so few laws in science, and a ton of theories. 

Now, I'm not saying that in the pop culture sense of "oh it's just a theory". Obviously you and I both know the burden of evidence necessary for something to become a theory. 

However, that doesn't take away from the philosophical basis of science being the exploration of the unknown, not the dictation of the known. 

Technically, none of us ever run an experiment to prove a fact. We try to best understand unknowns as far as we're able to observe them, but if for any reason the observations consistently went against what we colloquially work with as "facts", we would immediately reformulate the theories to incorporate the new observations. 

This happens in medical science all the time. We "know" something to be fact for decades, but then new information comes along that allows us to know new "facts". Same with physics, biology, anything. 

It's not a fact if new information could change it. Hence, we don't actually deal in very many facts. We certainly as individual scientist shouldn't have the obscene hubris to think that our personal research has ever generated a single "fact". Can you even imagine the level of arrogance it would take to believe that as a scientist???

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

Personally, I don't think this was ever Jesus' belief but rather these are words put on his lips by later authors (and we know John was written some 50-70 years after Jesus died).  I think Jesus might have been pushing for people to repent because he thought the coming of the Kingdom of God was imminent, perhaps he even thought that he was the Son of Man who God would use to initiate the Kingdom, but I doubt Jesus ever thought he was to be a human sacrifice whose death would heal an imaginary rift between man and God.

I like to think that if Jesus had been more educated about evolution he might even consider that there is no such rift between man and God and that as humans, we are born perfectly human.  We have been evolving for some millions and millions of years.  Humankind (homo sapiens) had walked this earth for more than 160,000 years before Jesus lived.  The oldest written word that we apparently have from God came some 157,500 years after our species first appeared.  That's a long time for there to be this rift between man and God that only Jesus could fix.  And if God did 'create' the earth, he seems to have spent a lot of time waiting for man (some 14 billion years) so that this rift could then exist and he would have to sacrifice his son to himself, to fix it.

I don't think Jesus was either a fraud or a liar, I just think he was born into a Jewish religious culture that was being oppressed by a nasty foreign power and these things helped shape his view of the world and his personal understanding of God.  He probably had the best of intent - it's just how he came to think of life and God, like so many others have come to their views too.

Yep, it's entirely possible that Jesus, being human, had a fundamentally limited understanding of divinity, like every other human being who has ever lived. 

To me, that's a huge part of faith, the fundamentally unknowable aspect, and getting to a spiritual state where that feels absolutely okay, in fact, it's kind of the point. 

I personally didn't see any point to any religion until I studied many of them and saw central themes through them. 

Then it was like: hmm, okay, there's something, but I have no reliable sources to help me grasp it because they're all fundamentally human sources, which are all fundamentally flawed. So then there is no human authority to which I can turn to define divinity...and oh...yeah...that's the whole point of faith. Neato. 

So to me, it doesn't really matter whether Jesus actually said a specific thing, or what he meant by a specific thing, or what may have been changed or translated along the way, making specific things less specifically valid, because in the end, even the source, Jesus, was a human being, incapable of fully grasping and communicating divinity. 

Jesus provides a pin-point view into a galaxy. A faint whiff of divinity on earth. 

You can read about him and his apparent words and tap into the vaguest, transient of senses of divinity, the same way you can through meditation or being in nature, or whatever your jam is. 

At least that's how I see it, others choose to put their faith in humans who said things, and humans who wrote what those people said, and then humans who had political interests in which words got published, and then humans who translated those words, which change in meaning over time because y'know, humans, and then humans taught those translated, changed meaning words in certain contexts to suite their particular human ideology, and so on and so forth. 

For me, humans are always unreliable narrators, but that's not a bad thing. 

On 7/14/2021 at 2:08 PM, Fastguitars said:

"gay" lifestyle is the pursuit of homosexual sexuality, as this is the definition.

Its not "honest" to pretend that "gay lifestyle" is not strictly related to the pursuit of sexuality that is "homosexual".     Therefore , its not honest to maintain the claim that "gay civil rights" is not based on what dictates the definition of "homosexual", which is, the "gay" sexuality, and nothing more and nothing less.

 

 

Uhh...I literally can't even parse what you are trying to say. 

But gay people don't pursue anything, they're just gay. If a gay person is celibate, they're still gay. If a gay man is married to a woman, he's still gay. 

Where choice comes in is if that person chooses to pursue a lifestyle that is truth or lies. Many gay people choose lies because living their truth is too dangerous. 

That's where gay rights come in, it's an effort to make it less dangerous for gay people not to live a lie. 

I'm straight, but if I lived in a world where being openly straight could get me savagely beaten in broad daylight, I might choose to live a lie too, but I would still be 100% straight. 

4 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

Well, If there is another way to God other than Christ's Blood, then You are right.

If you're not, then God is right.

It really comes down to one thing...

Jesus said that He is the only way to God, and that no man comes to God "but by Me".  John 14:6

So, that is the Cross of Christ.. which is the blood and death of Jesus....... being offered as the gift  of ="reconciliation between man and God".

Now, if Jesus is a fraud, and a liar, and not the Son of God,  and is just one more "religious icon",  then, pay no mind to what He said, and in that case, you can just keep going like this.......>"As for Christianity, well that's not a monolith either. My particular church, which is quite old and well established, not a rare fringe church, doesn't put any particular emphasis on the whole "dying on a Cross as the only means to accept you back into Himself". 

However, if Christ is telling the Truth, if He rose from the dead..... then you have  to make a different arrangement between yourself and God before you die, if you want to meet God as "Father", through Christ.... after you die.

Yeah...uh...all I said was that my church doesn't emphasize this stuff. 

So obviously, not all Christian churches promote the same teachings that you seem to dictate are "Christian". 

1 hour ago, Fastguitars said:

Science is the examination of facts, pick your "scientific topic".

 

Religion is :  man trying to become deity, or man trying to connect with Deity, based on man's self effort. (Religion)

 

Christianity, is  Holy God offering the "gift" of Spiritual reconciliation to Himself, by dying on a Cross as the only means to accept you back into Himself as "born again" Spiritually.   John 14:6

Lol, as a former scientist, we never traded in facts, we only hypothesized things. It's kind of fundamental to science that you never actually claim anything as fact, you only claim to not reasonably be able to claim something not a fact. 

Seriously, that's science. I hypothesize that something may have an effect on something else, but my statistical analysis always presupposes that there is no effect. I never prove anything, I only fail to prove that there's nothing. 

As for Christianity, well that's not a monolith either. My particular church, which is quite old and well established, not a rare fringe church, doesn't put any particular emphasis on the whole "dying on a Cross as the only means to accept you back into Himself". 

My church ordains indigenous spiritual leaders, so the fundamental basis of the church needs to be compatible with both Christian theology AND indigenous spiritual beliefs, so the teachings are pretty broad and philosophical and very different from many other Christian churches out there. 

So no, science is nowhere near as sanitized as people make it out to be. Science is philosophical, abstract, and in practice deeply political and profoundly corrupt, like every other manifestation of human institutional power. Just like churches. 

What is true is that each camp has some pretty powerful branding and PR behind them that has shaped public opinion, when really, they're both just a bunch of disparate organizations perpetually in fighting and trying to influence the dominant narrative.

Again, like EVERY SINGLE manifestation of human institutional power. 

Seriously, anyone who thinks the institution of "science" is some kind of coordinated force for truth has obviously never worked as a professional scientist. 

Lol, that's like saying the law is about justice. Sure...that's the PR, but any lawyer will tell you that that's not the reality. 

11 hours ago, romansh said:

My apologies, again I am assuming things about you that I should not.

Lol, people seem to do that about me

9 hours ago, romansh said:

If one does not know, then and agnostic label may well be apt. Having said that we by and large are still forced to take action. Our confabulations help us explain our actions to ourselves and perhaps others should we care.

For me spirituality is likely some chemical cocktail released by the body, would not be surprised if it involved an indole ethylamine derivative or two. Whether that has meaning or not I agree is moot.

Who cares? Oh I think you may do.

I have exactly zero idea what point you are trying to make. 

If you want to call me agnostic, go ahead. 

8 hours ago, romansh said:

Islam and Christianity on the whole claim that an angel came to Miriam (likely Gabriel) foretold of some kind of Divine birth. Thirty odd years later one of the religions claims that the product of this divine birth was crucified and rose from the dead. The other religion claims the crucifixion/death was a bit of the hoax.

Now perhaps more enlightened interpretations of these religions might take all this as an allegory or something. And then try an imbue meaning into the allegory. 

Personally, I prefer to imbue meaning into the world around me ... have to admit I am struggling a bit.

My personal interpretation of all of it is kind of: *shrug* who knows???

I only became open to spirituality when I fully embraced not needing to imbue things with meaning. 

I was listening to Eckhart Tolle talk about meaning and he basically said "who cares?" And I was like "right...who cares?"

On 7/5/2021 at 2:04 PM, romansh said:

This is ten years old now ... interesting

So it would, at least at times, seem science and religion are in conflict.

Well yeah, some churches claim absolutely insane things. I don't think anyone would ever claim that science is never in conflict with churches. 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I like what he has to say, Rom.  I look forward to reading more from Gus, but these couple of paragraphs really speak to me:

This is the wacky thing about free will and how it is preached in Abrahamic churches around the world. This preaching gets in the way of us realizing the kingdom of heaven, which is right here and right now everywhere that we look.  It is just that we can’t see it, and the sermons we keep getting keep us in the field of a battle of Good vs Evil, which is the field named sin.

The orthodox church is truly the church of the God in the Garden of Eden.  That God places guardians at the gates and keeps us out in the world.  So, when preaching on free agency and selective salvation, the church we have is really and truly the church of exile and sin.  It keeps the law of the God of Eden, but it is not a Christian church!

The laws of Christ and the laws of Thermodynamics speak the heresy.  They tell us that the will of that God is our will and that those gate guardians are us, it is just that we do not see it.  When each of us internalizes that “I and the father are one,” we find ourselves back in the Garden.  We see the one divine will all around us and can then truly love our enemies and our neighbors as our self.  It turns out that our enemies and our neighbors are our Self.

Yep, this is essentially the spiritual basis of the church I belong to. 

47 minutes ago, Dan said:

Let's all do a little honest self assessment.  Am I being any more argumentative that anyone here?  This board it titled "Debate and Dialog" and that is precisely what I (and everyone else here) am doing.  If you really wanted to hear familiar arguments from sources you already agreed with you would be on another board.  I am here to argue for the reality of the Christian God as presented in the canonical gospels and to attest to joy, peace, and comforts attendant to knowledge of him.  A lot of people think this attitude comes part and parcel with suspending my intellect and adopting a judgmental attitude.  Part of what I do here is to demonstrate that at least for me, neither of these notions is true.  I wrote in another post that for the sake of reaching the lost Christ is prepared to engage them on any level and if demonstrating a capacity for intellectual wrangling on the part of his adherents is what it takes that is what he will do.  If some of what I am arguing here is starting to bite then all I can do is quote the proverbs "faithful are the wounds of a friend".  I am not here to try to force anyone here to be what I am, but to convince them of what (and who) I know.

This response is argumentative. 

I'm genuinely interested in what's behind what you are trying to say and yet again, you are making assumptions about me and my beliefs. 

I repeat, I'm actually interested in what you have to say. I just can't figure out what on earth it is. 

Dan, you seem to have something you really want to say, but in all of your fervent posts, I can't really figure out what it is. 

I think a lot of us are getting distracted in your very argumentative and combative approach, but really, not much is actually being discussed.

I'm genuinely curious what you are feeling driven to express, and I don't want to just keep arguing with you over essentially nothing. 

As you can see, Rom has an inexhaustible capacity to argue minutiae on his own terms (which I actually say with affection), so if you keep at it like this, chances are you'll just burn out and be left feeling unheard. 

You have something you obviously want to communicate. What is it? What is the central thrust of what you feel compelled to say?

Take a break from arguing and asserting for a minute and share what it is that you want to share. I'm genuinely curious what's behind all this vim and vigor. 

I don't believe in hell. 

I believe in human fallibility. And religion and churches are very human. 

24 minutes ago, Dan said:

I do not write off the magnitude of importance of science in large philosophical questions.  By it's own admission science can only inform us about the testable.  Is it such a great intellectual leap to acknowledge that much of what makes our existence significant is untestable? Either with current or projected instrumentation?  I assert and I assert strongly that much of what is joyful and comforting about the universe is unknowable by the scientific method.  Has it ever occurred to you that the apparent indifference in your attitudes towards some of the bigger questions posed on this board is rooted in a dispair of ever knowing the answers by the techniques that you have restricted yourself to acknowledging?  I don't write that to hurt but to prod.  Christ came to meet our needs on every level, physical, intellectual and spiritual.  If you are primarily a man of intellect then engage him on that level and just see if he doesn't wind up filling your entire being, every aspect, with his satisfying and sustaining person.

You don't know me and haven't read my posts. Otherwise you would know that your categorization of my beliefs are way off. 

Feel free to challenge me or question me, but get your facts in order before concluding what I believe. 

To be clear, I'm considering becoming a Christian minister. 

6 minutes ago, romansh said:

I think I agree with what you are saying here. Sure there is much we don't know or understand. In fact as we learn and understand how this universe ticks [or might tick] in its various aspects, what we don't understand grows exponentially. This where I find awe.
Einstein:
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.

Precisely. 

Science is by definition the exploration of the unknown, not the collection and storage of facts, which is really a pop culture version of science. 

If someone writes off the magnitude of importance of science in large philosophical questions, then that person hasn't studied enough science to really understand it. 

Science is all about what we don't and can't yet understand. That's the entire point. Period. 

We study the things we've figured out already not to *know* things, but to have a foundational capacity to try and learn unknown things. 

Science was where I learned to think philosophically because it's all about thinking beyond to what you can't understand.