@Sojourner
Science doesn't have to 'prove' anything, that's for people who make assertions to do.
I don't really take issue with that. But that's not what you stated. You stated that 'there are no big questions,' as if science had already answered every question, which is far from the case.
Everything falls within the purview of Science, every single thing. Given time, all will be revealed, even why we seem to need Unreality.
Sorry, but that is plainly nonsensical. For a start, logic and mathematics do not fall under its purview, as science must assume those in order to function. Further, morality cannot be defined by science as the founding premises of ethics are necessarily philosophical; prescriptive, while science is concerned solely with the descriptive. Likewise for things like qualia and the experience of music; purely subjective phenomenon that cannot be put under a microscope, being distinct from the physical phenomenon that are associated with them, e.g., light waves or sound waves.
Realms of existence, supernatural, moral questions? Get over yourself, we're just an evolving species of ape, like it or not.
Well, even if we are nothing more than an evolving ape species, we will still have moral questions. And indeed our being such an organism does not preclude the existence of other states of being, the supernatural, God, etc.
Time you read Dawkins new offering ,
The Magic of Reality.
Ah yes, the infallible Richard Dawkins to whom both cleric and philosopher alike must bend the knee given his profound philosophical acumen. A man who, when challenged to debate even a specious sophist like William Lane Craig, declined knowing that the odds were firmly against him.
Having said that though, I'm sure he's a fine biologist and if this book is concerned with said subject matter then I may indeed see what it's like. I just don't expect people like Dawkins, or for that matter any member of the intellectually insipid New Atheist movement, to have answers to the 'big questions,' and even less to make them redundant entirely.
Topic: Are atheists missing the point?