Hacker News Reader

Well, I think surely the entirely fair thing to do is to just admit we don't know rather than make any attribution or imply any possession of an answer to those questions?

View on HN

Humans have created models for things they don't understand throughout human history. Certainly throughout any recorded history. We don't know, but we have a model that fits pretty well and we can guess at the underlying causes. We'll be wrong more often than right, but over time as we get more data and we can test more things, we get a more accurate model. Not necessarily the right model. We may never get that. But based on those models, "guesses" are far more reliable than "The Sun is a god who circles the world".

While we don't "know" how gravity works we can explain it and model it much more accurately now than when logos was the explanation. Providing those details is far more useful than a simple "we don't know."

Certainly, that's also perfectly fair. The thing to keep in mind is that some people derive utility from belief in some sort of creator, so ultimately it's an argument of values (specifically, you're looking to argue that people should prefer uncertainty to unprovable (but also undisprovable!) certainty).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com