Are you a hardcore materialist, moonman? In the past, that has not been my impression of you. Indeed, scientific inquiry is an ennobling and, usually, humbling enterprise. It deserves high praise. But another strain of thought has recently come to the fore, one which assumes knowledge of final truths. Perhaps it is best expressed by Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, who wrote that he is all in favor of "a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." I interpret Weinberg's use of the term "religion" as synonomous with "respect for mystery."
Hardcore materialists, as I define them, believe that "intelligent" people have solved the problem of existence, and that there are no unknown unknowns. To me, such thinking is foolishness beyond reckoning.
Actually, that is the result of Fundamentalist Christians punishing scientists who tried to believe in God who were also advancing science because their discoveries and theories were 'detrimental' to the fundamentalist doctrine.
Although I am no scientist, I am considered less of a Christian by the fundamentalists who engage in the crevo debates and by those whom I know IRL because I "believe in" evolution (not being ignorant, etc.)
To many religious people, "respect for mystery" means not asking about it at all. The scientist's natural reaction to any mystery is to want to investigate it and figure it out, so that it will be a mystery no longer. It's no virtue to "respect" mysteries to the point where they aren't questioned. In fact, it strikes me more as a form of disrespect. To learn about something is to cherish it.
Hardcore materialists, as I define them, believe that "intelligent" people have solved the problem of existence, and that there are no unknown unknowns.
Obviously, anyone who thinks there is nothing more to be discovered would not be interested in scientific research. What would be the point? We hardcore materialists believe that there are no unknowable unknowns worth considering.
I guess we're talking about materialism in the philosophical sense, because I doubt very few quality scientists would believe that there are no unknown unknowns. I think misunderstandings occur when philosophical materialism gets mixed up with materialist methodologies, which is popular with scientists because it yields the most defensible answers, as well as raising many good questions. After all, if there really were a stubborn materialist philosophy underpinning science I doubt that we ever would have heard of mass-energy equivalency, wave-particle duality, time dilation, dark matter, dark energy, and such.