do you mean "defining god as the unknowable", rather than "the unknown"? if that's the case, then i might be able to live with that, but let's acknowledge that the definition is one of the very points of contestation. you can't sidestep anything with it, i don't think. but that's not an objection to the definition or to adopting it.
> is both familiar, and comfortable.
actually, you don't think that's rather scary?
> Unless you're a know it
> all.
or unless you have scripture purporting to be from said "god". then you're giving up a lot to give up that scripture.
> And the definition of 'god' suddenly becomes more personal,
> since we each have borders to our knowledge.
i admit i don't follow the logic, here. for many people, god functions to overcome those limits. you're taking that away. that won't come easily, i don't think.
> And science, the study
> of the unknown, takes on new significance.
>
and here's the real rub, because it's clear you DO mean "the unknown" rather than "the unknowable", and this confusion of religion and science is precisely what won't work.
imo.
j
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead