After some thought, I feel that Alwyn is right, as he has previously stated that he feels that "the most noble aspiration is to uncover the objective truth", and I would agree that science would be the best way.

However, if one knows me enough, you'll know that I am no religious person, and I personally do not believe in the presence of an omnipotent being, but then I would not totally reject it if it can be proven. Or rather, shall I say, the anthropic principle in the boundary conditions of the beginning of the universe can well be interpreted into a "proof" for an divine creator, but then again, I personally think thats a load of crap, even though i have nothing to prove it.

I have noticed how some evangelists jump on anything that seems scientific and seems to prove that god exists, but reject everything in science that clearly goes against their religious text.

For example, someone has commented that using the equation for the overall upward force on an aerofoil, a bee should not be able to fly. Some people immediately jumped on it and said, "Ha, so science is wrong, and hence religion must be right!" Come on, do the wings of a bee even look like an aerofoil? But that is a stupid example, i daresay 99.95% of the people, and even evangelists who heard it will doubt that that is the case.

The thing is that science is really more powerful than some think. Even though it seems that with science we cannot even predict the motion of three stars, it is not the case. Astronomy has the variables, physics has the equation, but maths hold the solution, so please, don't just bugger the scientists. Bugger the mathematicians or astronomers as well. (But then again, it is pointless to argue with astronomers. "look! my telescope shows something different!" "Ahh, i see. thats just &^$^$*^$%(*&%$%$#&*&*. The hubble space telescope is better because it has this $%&^$&* fuction that prevents &^%*$*^, and this (&^%(&$( function.....)

But then again, these are not proof against an omnipotent being. These are just some examples to show that many of the problems with religion to seemingly clash with science is due to ignorance. I'm not a religious person, so pardon me if i do not seem to be offering a balanced argument, but i really cannot think of any examples where science is wrong and religion is right.

I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with the people who have a religion, but it would be better to adopt something that is not based on something we cannot prove. If you don't want to change, its alright, but do keep an open mind.

(Sorry, the only philosophies i've heard a bit about is confucianism and legalism, the rest i have absolutely not idea what it is about, so pardon me if i am wrong) It seems to me that Confucianism works even though they do not preach on what happens to you after you die if you do something wrong, because they drill into you that humans are supposed to help humans, and they also tell you what would happen to you when you are still alive. It IS effective, and it does not hinder science.

My viewpoint for myself: Religion is effective, but I'll prefer secular humanism. Religion is not supposed to explain things, science is. Confucianism promotes loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, love, potileness, righteousness, humility and sense of shame (zhong ziao ren ai li yi lian chi) and does not assume anything about the world around us, except the love of mankind intrinsic in everyone. So, i feel religion is not for me. But I dunno about the rest. I personally can't think of any utilitarian reasons to believe that people can only adopt this certain religion, if there is something like confucianism.