Arthur C. Clarke said that! :) And I fully acknowledge that he was smarter than me, but there are some presuppositional problems with that statement. The presuppositions are, "Humans are capable of understanding EVERYTHING that exists, and this is because everything that exists has a naturalist/materialist explanation."
But if we're approaching something that we don't understand, then we don't understand that it's understandable. We can't write it off under the assumption that it falls under our powers of observation. Stacking the conclusions this way is not actually a scientific outlook. (Though it is scientistic, limiting human knowledge to one contingent discipline.)
Another problem that comes to mind is that this invokes "God of the gaps," the fallacy of explaining everything we don't understand as God. It's very true that some things which seem mystical actually have rational explanations. The unfortunate trend is to assume that religious people define God as "the thing making the scary lightning I don't understand." But in reality, theists see God in the things they CAN explain. Why should anything be ordered, observable, reasonable, much less beautiful? Why should words have meaning, and why should I be able to use meaningful language to explain that lightning is caused by electrical discharge between a cloud and the ground? Because there is an ultimate reality outside of the natural world.
![[10]](https://img.comicfury.com/comics/159/5270a1541964808f1594121388.jpg)
But if we're approaching something that we don't understand, then we don't understand that it's understandable. We can't write it off under the assumption that it falls under our powers of observation. Stacking the conclusions this way is not actually a scientific outlook. (Though it is scientistic, limiting human knowledge to one contingent discipline.)
Another problem that comes to mind is that this invokes "God of the gaps," the fallacy of explaining everything we don't understand as God. It's very true that some things which seem mystical actually have rational explanations. The unfortunate trend is to assume that religious people define God as "the thing making the scary lightning I don't understand." But in reality, theists see God in the things they CAN explain. Why should anything be ordered, observable, reasonable, much less beautiful? Why should words have meaning, and why should I be able to use meaningful language to explain that lightning is caused by electrical discharge between a cloud and the ground? Because there is an ultimate reality outside of the natural world.
Humans always fear what they dont understand