Okay. I admit that the previous post was made so that we can reach a conclusion where science and religions themselves can coexist. I admit that i have been swayed by religion myself and am unable to think from an objective viewpoint. However, i still feel that there is nothing wrong with the existence of religion.

Personally, having seen many clever people who can think for themselves, I believe that everyone does things for a reason. If what the founder of a religion wants is power and ostracising all who refuse to follow him, that religion would undoubtedly be very unpopular, and devotees would be few. However, what we are observing today is that there are only a few religions that are dominant in the world. Why is this so?

Religions are maintained by people, and what determines the influence of a religion is the population. A religion can gain the number of believers in two ways:

a) Converting non-believers

or

b)Helping their members prosper, which i have mentioned in my previous post, and will not elaborate further here.

Method a) involves a descision on the part of a person, and I personally believe that man is not only attracted to physical rewards and repelled from physical punishments, but is intrinsically kind as well. For example, normal people would want to save lives, make people happy, and alleviate the sufferings of other people. In order for a person to make a decision, he must consider:

1. What are the benefits?
2. What are the drawbacks?
3. Is it morally acceptable?
4. Is it morally noble?

Hence, the most attractive religion should benefit, should not harm, and should not make a person guilty, and should make a person feel noble. As mentioned in the previous entry, religions have many benefits. A drawback of religion comes when two religion's beliefs are in direct conflict with each other (even science and religion). Then again, to define conflict, conflict occurs when the interests of two parties cannot co-exist, for example, there is only one sweet, but 3 ppl want it, and we have a conflict. Most religions preaches things that are morally acceptable, and teaches people to do noble things and make them feel noble.

If the purpose of all religions is to maintain social cohesion, then it seems that religions are not actually in direct conflict with another.

Which is more important? To not kill, or to assert that there is only one god? I am optimistic that people can make their own judgement. Personally, i cannot think of any reason for religions to turn against each other if they have a common interest.

Science, however, does have a different objective from religion. The purpose of religion is not to explain or inform, but how can you have an omnipotent being who doesn't know anything? People want to know, and people would believe anything that is believable and soothing to the ear. I feel that religion has done a rather bad job in this aspect, BUT it is not the main purpose.

Science is meant to find out about our surroundings and ourselves, and its purpose is not always noble. I'm not saying Fritz Haber is not a noble person, but the fact that the discovery of Haber process is a major factor in extending the war that could have ended with the defeat of Germany due to insufficient nitrates to make explosives shows that science is a double-edged sword.

Both science and religion contribute to the progress of the human society, but in different aspects. We must realise that the purpose of religion is not to explain to us what the world is like, but how to live as a part of the society. We cannot gauge the progress of a society merely by its scientific accomplishments.

In short, I would like to put it this way: If the purpose of religion is to explain how things work and why things are, I would agree with alwyn that with the current amount scientific knowledge we have we do not need a baseless assertion on how things work, and that religion ought to be replaced by science. However, that is obviously not the case.

Humanism is a noble ideal, I would agree. However, humanism seems to be a superset of most of the philosophies and religions we have: they are all there to strive for the greater good of mankind.

Let me put it this way: For those with a religion, good for you, but realise that religion can be expressed in a utilitarian manner, and realise that if it is not for the benefits it brings, it could not have spread its influence so far, so cherish it. As for the "strange" parts, practice it if you want, but do make an effort to reason it out.

For those without a religion, adopt a philosophy. It helps. I would recommend Confucianism.