[arkain101]

My opinion, anyone that uses a a peice of technology is following science. Be it a wrench, a fork, a lever or a computer that works from electricity.

Everyone follows science whether they know it or not, however not very many study it because it requires alot of thinking, and for alot of people thinking is too much effort, or it very well may be they dont have the mental capability to understand.

Religion on the other hand is different. You can follow it, or not, and you can follow it or not whether you understand it or not.

[Pyrotex]

In my opinion, very few people "follow science". Actually, I would say, "engage in science".

I have 3 cats who drink out of an advanced technology stainless steel bowl. I dare say, my cats do not follow science. Looks like we need a definition or two around here.

I offer this: can we agree that "following science" must in some obvious way be parallel to "following religion"? Just because I have six-pointed stars on my black leather jacket does not mean I follow Judiasm.

Okay. Following religion implies some degree of choice, or at least informed acceptance. Perhaps it means study, maybe not. Therrefore "following science" should imply some degree of choice, or at least informed acceptance. To follow science, you must be aware of what science IS, and accept it as a source of information and policy, even if you don't understand why or how. I would suggest that it also means that your "acceptance" implies approval--you like the idea that your source of information comes from science--you like the idea of science itself, and you are to some degree interested enough in it to read and enjoy scientific writing, at some level.

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

Like every one who has given an opinion; Science or being interested in science is different than religion. One must have some exact scientific reason before ffects religion. If I'm interested in the freezing point of water I won't reference the bible.If ,Truck missdmy car by an inch, I won't reference the atomic table. I guess "overtake"is confusing . Do we mean instead of religion, or inplace of? if so I say NO.. especially if you have "moderaters" who claim to regulate you opinions because they are cluless jerks, and want you to respond in their way. Religion is founded on ancestoral cognizance and I feel science has "overtaken" the word of mouth or song and dance method of communication and teaching, if the question is going in that direction, I feel science won't slow down, and religious belief will need to be proving because science is what science is. Certain people we know would replace because of the lack scientific proof source some of the beautiful things we want to believe in. Can't you see some fool saying you can't weigh hope so it is invalid, therefore it does not exist. In this case science or we should realy say scientist could take over (a hostile take over) religion. Lastly
religion has no cost, it is free and already yours , scientific stuff has a cost and a greater level of conformmity. 1 + 1 = 2 and that the whole story, now what do we learn today, once you know the whole story the story is over.

DORSEY

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Millard Alexander Dorsey

Do we mean instead of religion, or inplace of? if so I say NO.. especially if you have "moderaters" who claim to regulate you opinions because they are cluless jerks, and want you to respond in their way.

And just which moderators are you calling "cluless jerks" Mr. Dorsey?

[UncleAl]

"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity," Harlan Ellison. Technological civilizations will always fall to gods and their self-righteous mobs. This is called bad luck.

[hallenrm]

Let me try to get the thread bad on track!

The question posed is with regard to the popularity of science versus the popularity of religion amongst the population of the world at large.

Given the present state of literacy and the economic status of a large fraction of the population, it is a foregone conclusion that religion rules the roost.

But, is there any hope for the science to replace the religion. I think there is.

I live near an urban village in Delhi, that cannot be said to be really developed in any real sense, but a large section of the people living in it are semi literate, they are also the consumers of filtered water, electricity and telephone services.

Yesterday while passing by, I heard the words about a state sponsored campaign. It was about malaria eradication. The campaigner was telling the characteristics of the mosquitoes that can cause malaria.

That's science!

It goes down the throat of even semi literate people, because malaria affects them. So they remember and also internalize the info.

This is a scenario very similar to the scenario when religions flourished worldwide. They offered solutions for the problems people faced.

Science can (and I hope it will) overtake religions which are getting rusted. They do not take in new information, to provide new hypothesis, something that science does all the time.

What is required is to raise battalions of good science communicators who talk the language of the masses, a science away from the ivory towers, that seem to dominate science today.

Anyone listening?

[ronthepon]

Science is something that we are building on now, just the way religion has been been built upon for many years.
I think that science is not behind religion in any respect, other than rigidness and lack of proof.

The basic reason about this is that lately, free thinking has become a large stress point. Today when little kids ask "Daddy! what was god doing before he made earth and heaven?" they are answered by something like "god only knows." But just three to four centuries ago, they would get "He was preparing hell for those who ask such questions"
Which answer would you prefer?

A kid will learn what he is taught whe he is young. And when he grows up, he becomes fixed and rigid about his beliefs. It takes a lot of power to change that belief. But a believer will try to affect the people aound him with his beliefs. I think that this is the factor that will determine the speed at which science prevails over human belief.

Anyway, this is the time when science ad rationalism are expanding and working their ways into the darkest of caverns of human civilisation. I bid it good luck in it's quest to enlighten us mortals. (Ahem, I think that im beggining to feel the begginings of rigidness)

Science is a religion like no other.

[Stargazer]

There are a number of reasons why science is not "popular":

- Science hard, religion easy. It's easy to believe in a myth that gives answers and demands no investigation of the truthness of the statements. Indeed, it must discourage investigation and observation that could lead to a more accurate understanding of the world - what if they saw that the world is in fact not like in the religious texts? Oh, the horror.

- Science limits the possibilities. Or that is what some people think, anyway. But, we know that God did not create the entire universe within a week, that Jupiter's position on the sky at the time of your birth affected your personality in absolutely no way at all, and that Sol is not a goddess zooming across the sky in her chariot. Sorry to shatter your precious illusions.

- Science is severely misunderstood. Some people seem to think that science is just another set of myths or belief systems. They say that biological evolution is a religion. They say that one person's belief is just as true as anyone's belief. People don't know that science is radically different from any religion.

[InfiniteNow]

Frankly, I'm very amazed at how even this poll is right now:

View Poll Results: Will science ever overtake religion in popularity?

This poll will close on 05-26-2006 at 01:46 AM

Yes: (5) 26.32%
No: (6) 31.58%
Can't say?: (4) 21.05%
It is already far ahead: (4) 21.05%

Voters: 19.

[hallenrm]

I was lately going through the Intelligent design poll thread, and looking at the attitude of certain scientists, I indeed dobt that science can really overtake religion. The reason for my such an opinion is because the attitude of these scientists differs very little from that of high priests in most religions.