It is an important thing to remember, however, that all of these things were once attributed to the actions of gods. People could not think of a way in which these things could happen except through the magical intervention of a deity, often with the intent of helping or punishing people.To "ruthlessly" explain why rain falls from the sky… is not to explain God away.
…
Remember you claimed we humans have pretty much "stopped evolving"?
The fact that god(s) have been ousted from these hidey holes does not bode well for the current set of gaps. As I said before, it is cleaner to summarily clear god out of these holes so we can get a better look into the darkness.
The mechanism of evolution hasn’t stopped working on humans, but humans have attempted to keep themselves alive when otherwise they would have fallen victim to various natural selection pressures. A great many of us would probably have fallen to starvation if not for the invention of modern agriculture. So while the traits are still randomly popping into the gene pool which would allow some percentage of us to not only survive, but perhaps thrive on less nutritious food, and in lower quantities, there is no selective pressure pushing our species as a whole in that direction.
I don’t think we’ve stopped evolving, but the old pressures have less leverage on us than they used to, so I have a hard time imagining what our current selective pressures are, and where they are pushing us.
Why don’t you quack your non-vague definition of what faith is at us? I asked for that a while back and though you do love to imagine us dodging around your every question, I have seen little come from you in the form of direct answers. You mentioned before you thought my definition of faith was “diluted”. Care to give it a go?The first question is "What IS gravity?"
Is our understanding of gravity clear or vague on this matter?
Don't get silly on me by quacking "saying god did it is not an explanation." I'd like you to demonstrate your non-vague explanatory skills about gravity
As to what gravity is, science is working on it. When you ask a question about what something is you can usually define it in terms of something else we are familiar with. Apples are fruit (comparing the item to a vast database of similar objects). They are composed of organic molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of sub-atomic particles, which are made of quarks (in some cases)…
Now, what are quarks? Here we are at a stumbling block. We can say that they are LIKE some other kinds of particles, and not like others, such as bosons. But to really explain what they are we have to explain what they do. We discuss the fundamental properties of the Quark and by that explanation have encompassed the “quark-ness” of quarks.
Gravity appears to be such a topic. It appears to be a fundamental force, not comprised of anything, and not exactly like anything else either. There are similarities we can discuss such as the square of the distance rule, and how that is shared by electromagnetism. But we are left to explain the properties of gravity and these properties must represent what gravity IS, because it is not easily compared to other things.
Generally speaking, gravity is an attractive force that changes inversely proportional to the square of the distance and attracts all things with mass. You have to know the definitions of words like force and mass but that’s about the best we can do so far.
As far as I know, there is not any “deeper” understanding of what gravity is. People are working on that, trying to figure out what it is exactly about mass which creates this effect. This may not be satisfying to you, it might not fill you with inspiration, or purpose, but it is not required to be satisfying.
This is what I was saying above. Things are defined in relationship to other things. The most fundamental explanation of what a thing is, is what a thing does. What else do you expect, and why do you imagine that it would constitute “more”? And it should be noted you do not need faith in science. There are plenty of good reasons to have confidence in science.Your faith in science is based strictly on elementary explanations of behaviors of natural phenomena and nothing more.
We have a pretty good handle on “what is the nature of reality”, but I guess that depends on what you mean by the question. We can describe it in pretty good detail up to a few micro-seconds after what people call “the big bang”. We can extrapolate pretty confidently billions and billions of years into the future to the full victory of entropy. What happens before and after that we don’t have enough data to determine. But from the first few microseconds to the failure of the forces of nature in the mind-bogglingly distant future seems like a pretty good start.You might be stuck with the question "What is the nature of reality" before you can confidently assert that the gaps filled with scientific understanding have done away, or will do away with the question of god.
Why, what do you have along these lines? Does wishing really hard that god was real give you any insight?
Nonsense. You are arguing with the phantom versions of us again. Nobody here has ever said we would know everything about everything. Nobody here has ever claimed certainty, no matter how often you try to put that on our side of the table.Are you going to make a claim we will one day know everything about everything?
That's a claim of omniscience, no doubt based on omnipresent observational powers and omnipotent understanding.
It's a silly notion. The blank-slate(for the most part) phenotype of our minds can hold an infinite permutation of ideas. An evolutionary algorithm is at play in two different fields. One is the age-old genetic evolution. The newer one is the collective of information/ideas. 
