Not really - the two are the same things. Different parts of the mind certainly, with different motivations and different forms of instinct, but for that reason it is no different than considering options such as 'should I go to x or stay at home?'.

Nothing matters, because every millisecond, we are presented with decisions and chances. Each one will change the future, in any way from a huge way to an almost imperceptible way. There's no 'going to happen'

It's a basic biological need. The fact that people can ignore it and others even to the point of negative consequences if they are so willing is a good example.

Not all had a formal structure, but they still made observations, looked for patterns, and applies them similarly. That is found in every single culture, or indeed, group of animals, not even limited to sentient beings. Even if they had superstitions or misunderstandings, they are usually applied in a consistent manner. Someone with no formal introduction may not know exact methods or the theory behind knowledge, but they will still make observations and seek patterns - that is the one thing the human brain is actually very good at doing based on its structure.

Just out of curiosity then, do you think there is a system of ethics in place? Is there any real reason not to infringe on others for your own benefit?

Some would argue that the future can be predicted with absolute certainty and that it is set in stone (though I do not fall within that camp). It should be noted though that fate and free will are not incompatible concepts. In theory, someone could be fated to make a choice or decision.

But coming back to my own views. I don't think that future is set in stone either. Yet, the thing about science is that it only explains what happens. You know (to a high degree of certainty) that an apple dropped on the surface of the Earth will accelerate 9.81m/(s*s) (excluding air resistance) towards the center of mass of the Earth; however, you never ultimately know why. Can mathematics itself cause the apple to fall? Or rather, does mathematics simply model or just describe an apple's fall. Is it not possible that something could be there behidn the scenes making all of this happen?

Not everyone has that willpower.

Is that to say that religion doesn't make observations or seek patterns? Just as logic and science, religion starts with its own fundamental assumptions and is built from there. Over the centuries it hasn't remained constant but rather has developed and continues to develop.

To caveman:

Yup. Basically.

There is no universal system. Most decisions are, at some level, based on not doing what you wouldn't want others to (primarily not hurting someone or infringing on their free will). People who have acted outside that have obviously existed, but as an exception, and in the end, as a result, they end up having themselves infringed upon in some form. Over history, systems have been very strongly contrasting at times.

That's a misconception - the effects of gravity are known well enough that an understanding can be reached, not only precise enough to use technology such as Hohmann orbits, but to predict the presence of otehrwise undetectable objects (black holes primarily), and even have an understanding of how (as in general and special relativity) it even affects time. Mathematics as performed by humans (and other sentient beings elsewhere) models the fall, but the reason it falls is because of consistent physical properties that apply across the universe.

Which reinforces the 'basic biological need' part.

It's dropped assumptions as they have been proved to be a completely untenable position (e.g. geocentricism, the nature of objects such as the moon, sun and stars), but never seeks further understanding (or anything new).

A fair enough position; however, I would argue that most people seem to progress towards certain values or morals usually as a result of experience.

I am quite aware of special relativity. In whatever manner the universe works, it does appear to work in a consistent manner which personal experience seems to verify. My own take on this is that the laws of the universe and its properties were put in place by a divine being. Now I don't actually think that gravity doesn't exist or anything; however, I brought up that point specifically because there are a select few instances where I think that science may be missing whats really out there because it is only modelling what occurs based upon outside observation.

Consider the following: What I have always wondered is why is there a "being". Why isn't there just a body that just moves and makes "decisions" on its own based upon outside stimuli. Surely big collections of organic molecules together could perform these necessary functions on their own to survive and still interact in manners that an outside observer would consider to be things like emotion or social interaction (side effects of survival mechanisms) without the need for a "being" to control it. Could not clumps of organic molecules that look like human bodies based upon automatic pattern recognition through reflected photons hitting a construct called a retina, execute seemingly complex actions such as group self defense or even hierarchical government.

To sum it all up: Why am I, a "being," controlling a body instead of some "organic husk" of a body just simulating everything in my life. Its things like these which lead me to believe that science may not necessarily be the explanation for everything and that other things may be out there.

I guess this is more of a semantic debate than anything depending on how we define things. I would agree that its a basic biological need; however, it is still necessary for many people if they are to be happy and fall under both categories.

I would contest that. Using the history of my own faith as an example: Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century advocated the combination of logic and faith together, Vatican II, the recent movement with liberation theology started in South America (Archbishop Oscar Romero comes to mind).

I'm with Banefull on this one - most scientists and philosophers in history have been religious, of one religion or another. Just because those interested in keeping power embrace ignorance doesn't mean that everyone does. I mean, for heaven's sake, Mendel, the man who worked out genetics? Was a monk.

Many (I would contest the 'most') were at least publicly so because it is only in the last century that freethinking has been considered socially acceptable.

*long. blink* I'm a student of history, thank you very much, I KNOW that it could be fatal to publish certain ideas in certain times. Having faith in a deity by no means hinders scientific thought as a matter of course. Some people are just inclined to go 'this is too big, we can't understand this', scientists and laypeople both. Take a look at reactions to where quantum physics is headed - there are a lot of the physicists involved going 'we can't understand this'.

Also look at all the times where science and knowledge has been wedded with religion - all those monuments aligned with stars. Religion can be used to hinder, to celebrate ignorance - and this only increases when the religion itself is feeling stressed, like during the Reformation. But I wouldn't say that it's going to follow on that religion and a belief in a deity = shunning knowledge.

i am still trying to answer this question, after 33 years on this planet. i spent 4 years in the service, and am now in my third job of a longer-than-6 months duration, and all i do is wage-slave to pay taxes, eat, fix my car, buy clothes and stuff, and pretty much wash, rinse, and repeat. isn't there some deeper purpose to this existence?!

there are literally countless trillions of stars, planets, constellations, moons, asteroid belts, black holes, nebulas, comets, galaxies, and here i sit, slaving away at my crappy job for a few paper scraps, and i...we...will never see this universe. at least not with these carbon-based eyes.