That is true, but I also observe people taking some minor cognitive and brain sciences experiment and talk it up to disproving the existence of a free will. I think the whole problem boils down to people talking a lot about things they not only don't know about, but don't even realize how little they know about them. Maybe this also has to do with experts often not even bothering to talk to commoners about their field of expertise, which may be caused by most people having no culture whatsoever when it comes to discussions. Flamewars are not just an internet phenomenon.
Edit: One sort of unrelated question: It seems to me that there is this huge conflict between science and religion in the US, it looks almost like there are two separate blocks. Is that the case, and why is it? I live in Bavaria, which is like the Texas of Germany, and I see little conflict between science and religion over here. Why is that?
Furthermore, there is no longer a scientific consensus that the world is deterministic. That was 100 years ago. Random (or seemingly random) events have their place in physics.
If this were true than the entire scientific method would be faulty.
Furthermore, there is no longer a scientific consensus that the world is deterministic. That was 100 years ago. Random (or seemingly random) events have their place in physics.
If this were true than the entire scientific method would be faulty.
It is true. No one is saying there is no more causality (because that still exists), but there is no more determinism. There is a difference. Study some quantum physics, and we'll talk again.
It is true. No one is saying there is no more causality (because that still exists), but there is no more determinism. There is a difference. Study some quantum physics, and we'll talk again.
I'm going to go ahead and say you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Unless you have multiple degrees in physics, I wouldn't be taking such a condescending tone with me.
Look, I don't want to get into a swordfight here, but quantum mechanics is not deterministic. I don't have multiple degrees in physics, I don't have any degree at all. I just happen to work with scientists every day. You could at least have bothered to look things up at Wikipedia where it says:
Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly inventive in this field, he did not accept the more philosophic consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality and the assertion that a single subatomic particle can occupy numerous areas of space at one time.
Scientific method and modern physics get along fine, despite modern physics being nondeterministic. I cannot be bothered to look for another source except Wikipedia, but I think it will do right now.
Look, I don't want to get into a swordfight here, but quantum mechanics is not deterministic. I don't have multiple degrees in physics, I don't have any degree at all. I just happen to work with scientists every day. You could at least have bothered to look things up atWikipediawhere it says:Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly inventive in this field, he did not accept the more philosophic consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality and the assertion that a single subatomic particle can occupy numerous areas of space at one time.
Scientific method and modern physics get along fine, despite modern physics being nondeterministic. I cannot be bothered to look for another source except Wikipedia, but I think it will do right now.Oh, I understand the basic concepts of Quantum physics including wave functions, the uncertainty principle, and several paradoxes such as Schroedinger's cat. Also, I never said that the world was strictly deterministic, but the idea that random events occur would completely undermine our views of the world as it would violate causality. One of the major issues that physics has today is finding a grand unifying theory that would unite the quantum model with general relativity. I'm sure once this is discovered the universe will become much more transparent.
If you understand, then why are we arguing? Classical physics: everything is determined, 100%. Modern physics: Things are not certain anymore, thus the universe is no longer deterministic. However, things still cause other things. Therefore causality yes, determinism no. Also, about random events: there are situations where you cannot tell whether an atom will decay right now or in 10000 years. It's all a question of probability. That's why I used the word 'random'. I may have used it wrong, whatever, I'm going to say it for the third time in this thread: I'm German. Think before you get hung up on single words and call me stupid. I believe I do somewhat know what I'm talking about. I am also not going to argue about the details here, because it is very far off topic, and because I will start learning about that at university shortly. I think we can all live with "Current science no longer states the universe to be strictly deterministic."
You are assuming that just because we can't explain a phenomenon currently, that it is impossible. It sounds like you believe that it is impossible to predict the actions of a complex system not because the scientific model is flawed, but because there is some magic ether which can never be quantifiably observed. Emotions are just the emergent by-product of a complex system, heuristics that we biological lifeforms use to analyze chemical cascades within our nervous system. The idea that there is some metaphysical plane of existence that lifeforms require an interaction with is unfounded and absurd.
It seems as though you are operating under the belief that "can't be effectively determined with science" means "can't be effectively determined at all". We know perfectly well why certain TV shows are emotionally moving and certain ones aren't, but the framework we use to describe and explain these things is not science; it's drama, philosophy, literature, etc.
Current scientific theories do not explain everything in our universe; the scientific method is a tool which if used properly can explain everything.
If someone said, "Current shovels do not dig everything in our universe; shoveling is a tool which if used properly can dig everything.", they would only receive raised eyebrows and funny looks. How is your statement different?
We know perfectly well why certain TV shows are emotionally moving and certain ones aren't, but the framework we use to describe and explain these things is not science; it's drama, philosophy, literature, etc.
Actually, no. We explain these things with sciences known as neurology and psychology. They've actually figured out these things to an amazing degree. Before you say that science doesn't know something, or can't know something, you should probably check first. Odds are that there are indeed scientific studies of the topic at hand, and it is just you who doesn't know.
Here are some quick examples of scientific studies of how TV and emotions interact. I haven't read any of these. They are just from the first page of a crappy Google search.
Here are some quick examples of scientific studies of how TV and emotions interact. I haven't read any of these. They are just from the first page of a crappy Google search.
"This study seeks to test the effects of both live and breaking television news on viewers’ attention and memory. In addition, stories that evoke fear, anger, and disgust will be tested with the belief that each separate emotion has a different effect on information processing." This study is on attention, memory, and information processing. Fear, anger, and disgust were approximated by having participants fill in a 7-point rating scale with their opinions.
"This paper examines whether emotional message content alters the effects of structural complexity and information density on available resources, measured by secondary task reaction times (STRTs), and message encoding, measured by audio recognition." This study is on secondary task reaction times and audio recognition.
"The study investigated the effects of program-induced emotions (pleasure and arousal) on the memory of TV commercials." Pleasure and arousal were determined by having the subjects fill out a questionnaire. The statistics that the questionaire produced were then subjected to research.
Nobody knows everything. Just because you don't know something, don't assume that nobody knows it, or it can't be known.
Expanding on your well-said remark, I don't claim to believe that it is necessarily impossible for science to understand certain things, but that attempting to understand certain things with science is kind of an odd way of going about it. This kind of reminds me of those programming language debates that sometimes happen where someone will valiantly defend their pet language's usefulness over all others for some esoteric task, pointing to the elaborate set of bloated workarounds whose main purpose is typically to keep the language from getting in its own way as it attempts to do something utterly alien to it.
Take the study of history, for instance. The study of history is valuable, but under most circumstances is not a science. You can't pick up a history book, note that Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo, and go, "Oh boy! Honey, you go get the 19th century Belgium ready, I'm going down to the basement to grab my Napoleon. I really want to try this!" History does repeat itself, but not in the sort of way that is intended when a thing is labeled repeatable scientifically. The study of history deals in themes, science deals in things. One couldn't say anything scientifically useful about the relation of credentialism in Confucian China with credentialism in the U.S of today, but one could say something historically useful. Why discard useful information simply because it is of one type instead of the other?
I suppose my beef is that many people use "science can explain everything" as shorthand for "nothing but science can explain anything", and that things which other methods can explain reasonably, coherently, and often quite effectively, have no legitimacy unless shoved somehow into the scientific framework.
I suppose my beef is that many people use "science can explain everything"
It can. The only things science cannot explain are things about which we currently do not have or are not able to gather enough information about. History is still scientific, we just lack most of the information we need to make detailed claims. If a future includes omni-present mind-reading/recording and event recording from all possibly angles at all times, then history could be an exact science. We could prove what was done, why it was done, and exactly what effects it had. A current limitation in our ability to gather, store, and process information is the only thing preventing that.
"nothing but science can explain anything"
Science can explain anything that can be observed. I would argue that if something cannot be observed, then it cannot exist. If something has not been observed, but theoretically could be observed, then it likely does not exist.
I think a large number of misconceptions in this flamewar are due to how we're defining science.
As in Rym and jcc's arguments about history, the unstated point is that "science," more specifically the scientific method, is the way we pursue nearly all knowledge/data. This is, we gather and analyze data to form theories on the nature of reality (Physical Laws, Historical Fact, etc).
This is different from religion and philosophy, where there isn't the practice of testing facts and forming theories from those results. I believe Rym said it best on the last page:
Science asks about things that could possibly ever be observed. Philosophy asks about things that we believe cannot possibly be observed. Religion asks about everything.
Science only makes claims based on what has actually been observed. Religion makes claims based on things that have never been observed. Philosophy makes no claims.
As you can see, science is fine because it makes its claims (on the nature of reality) based on evidence. Philosophy is fine because it makes no claims, based on no evidence. Religion is where we have a problem.
All well and good, but I still don't see how science and religion contradict each other. I also get the feeling that the main part of the criticism is directed specifically towards Christian fundamentalists, as if they were all of Christianity. If religion is that stupid, fallacious and whatnot, how can any respectable scientist be religious? (Disclaimer: This is not meant to prove that there's no problem with religion, which I never wanted to prove in the first place. It does however point in the direction that there might be more to it than meets the common geek's eye, and that it might be worth looking deeper into it, instead of just saying it's stupid.) If one calls religion as such stupid, then one calls every religious person there is is stupid. This might be the case, for there are many stupid people on this earth, but I still think that such a drastic statement deserves a flawless deductive argumentation leading up to it.
And another thing I want to point out: The moralic restrictions and implications of religion are not simply made up as in someone crazy wrote a set of rules and threw it onto the street and people started worshipping it. Those are all guidelines that developed during the history of the religion in question, and it is observable how they have changed in the course of history. I, for one, don't want to live by an ancient set of rules, I rather make my own ones, but this is more a question of preference, so I don't think I'm better than someone who does.
Since and religion contradict each other a lot since religion claims things happened and do happen that are unobservable, unprovable, and unknowable but must be true and must have happened either 'because the book said so' or 'because I have faith'. This pretty much goes directly against science.
What you're doing here is taking religious teachings and judging them the same way as if they were scientific teachings. Religion is not science, and it doesn't try to be science, either, except for a few nutcases that no one takes seriously, not even other Christians. Reading everything as if it were science is not necessarily the best approach, but some people just seem to take that for granted. You'd have to argue that this is the way to go about this first.
I live in the probably most conservative and religious state in Germany, which would be Bavaria. However, I can't observe any conflicts between science and religion here. Explanation 1: No one notices that the two cannot live next to each other, and everyone over here is ignorant of this huge contradiction between religion and science. But the FRC forums, bastion of the wisest among the living, is able to sort it all out. It will just be a matter of time before Universities realize that (maybe someone should send them a link to our forums), and there will be a big death match between the scientific faculties and the faculty of theology. This epic fight will decide whether we will go back to the middle ages, or live in a scientific utopia with no more stupid people instead, and I will make a fortune selling beer and pretzels in the arena. Explanation 2: Maybe the contradiction is not as clear and evident as you claim it is. Explanation 3: Well, feel free to add your own.
merry_minstrel, it's very simple. If you make a claim that something is true, and you do not have evidence, that is a contradiction. Christianity claims that a guy walked on water, turned water to wine, and came back to life. They also claim that cookies and wine turn into that zombie man when you eat them. I can assure you that those cookies remain cookies all the way to your stomach.
It's not just christianity. Pick any religion you want, and I will tell you the things they believe that contradict with science. The only way to avoid a conflict is if you either make no claims, or only make claims that you can provide valid evidence for. It's really that simple.
See, you did it again. You took everything literally, and you're not supposed to do that. If you do that, yes, it's simple. What I am saying is that religion possibly isn't what you think it is. There is a philosophical discipline called "language theory". You might not be decoding those writings correctly, therefore the discussion doesn't end with "cookies don't turn into zombie meat." Like I said before, I am far from trying to defend religion and claiming there's nothing wrong with it. But just taking the bible, reading it and saying "haha, it says A here, but science says that's impossible, because it's really B" doesn't work, and you're doing it wrong. And I won't even get into asking you to define what god is, what "to exist" means, and what "true and false" really are. Those are words, and there are concepts behind them. Those concepts are, however, not necessarily universal. Suggestion: Find a theologist, and have a conversation with him. Actually, record it and put it on some feed, it might turn out very interesting.
I suspect you know as little or less about religion as I do, but you act like you knew what it was all about, have understood everything about it and know better. Again: Things might be more complex than you might think.
I also get the feeling that the main part of the criticism is directed specifically towards Christian fundamentalists, as if they were all of Christianity.
All christians believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and the existence of an omnipotent deity. This is not in dispute. To disbelieve either is to not be a christian. Period. It's not a "no true Scotsman" argument: christianity is a clearly-defined branch of judaism that split off during Roman times.
That said, it thus follows that all christians believe in supernatural beings that have never in human history been verifiably observed and that have historical evidence of secular origin. With the total lack of evidence for, coupled with the evidence against, the existence of these divine beings, it is perfectly clear that christianity is false. It makes false claims, and has no basis in logic or reason. To believe despite this is to deny logic and reason.
My criticism of religion is directed toward ALL christians. Every christian on this Earth is making false claims either to themselves or others. If they are not, then they are not actually christians.
Now, as my contention involves all the supernatural beliefs of all the religions man has concocted over the years, my criticism is directed more accurately toward all religion. A fundamentalist christian is no better or worse than a moderate christian: both believe in made-up fairytales.
Belief is by definition acting/thinking as if something exists without having evidence for it. Everyone does that. I, for one, believe that I have a free will. I know that I might not have one, but I act and think like I have one, because I can't act and think like I don't have one. You might call this my religion. Thus I am religious, therefore stupid?
Belief is by definition acting/thinking as if something exists without having evidence for it.
I only believe in things for which I have evidence, and I always accept the possibility that I am wrong.
I, for one, believe that I have a free will.
And you, probably like myself, are able to observe internally your own "free will." Your belief at least has a tiny shred of evidence. At the same time, you accept that you may in fact not have free will, as there is some evidence in the fields of neuroscience that we may not.
The existence of free will is an area of contention where the evidence is inconclusive. Debating it is a matter half of science and half of philosophy: not religion.
I am able to observe that I have a conscious inside myself. Cogito ergo sum, if you will. But whether that is free or not is completely unknown. Also, when you think about it, the concept of a consciousness has a pretty supernatural feel to it, if you ask me.
Yes, the existence of a free will is part of religion. The free will, in other words, human responsibility, would be what the story with the snake and the apple is all about. But I agree, there is not much debate going on there. I will say no more about religion, because we seem to be using different definitions. If you want to continue nevertheless, I would ask you to provide a definition that we can use as a base for the purpose of discussion. Otherwise, this won't lead anywhere.
Just have to say that a lot of this seems very convoluted. Even though I'll likely be corrected, I have to try to put in my two cents, from someone who's sort of uncertain about anything anymore.
If science cannot observe something, and by this I mean either it or its repercussions, even if it did exist, it doesn't matter for our purposes as humanity. If I told you that there was an invisible ghost monkey behind you right now, even if there was, if you could not use that information to make better informed decisions, it does not matter. However, this does not apply to things that are detected but not observed directly; I think this goes for black holes, but correct me if I'm wrong.
In a similar way, a statement can be made that the way the universe was formed involved a great deal of chance. At the same time, an argument can be made against that, in that if it did not exist, we wouldn't be here to talk about it, at least not in the way that we are now. In other words, I don't think anyone can legitimately speak on how time began, but instead how it developed into our present condition through the information we have about structures, processes, and the way things come to happen. In some cases, I think science possibly is flawed, much like trying to prove a rectangle is always a square because a square is always a rectangle. I don't think science is wrong, but there is a certain limit to it, and it's vital to understand science uses what it's trying to understand to even begin to comprehend it. It has a sort of similarity to self-awareness in the human brain.
I do think however that, while religion may not necessarily be entirely truthful, it still serves a purpose as something to motivate the human mind into action, driven by the instinct of survival. Churches and their kin aid the community. The real reason that religion is a problem comes from those who use it as an excuse, as an exception to the rule (not to mention pride ).
In the end, you have to ask yourself what the point of humanity is, which is a difficult question to answer even for religion. Is it to create a legacy? Is it to become continuously more efficient? Is it to try to find a reason for humanity to exist? Personally, I think it's related directly and indirectly to other humans; the dominating power that many people so want is only useful for gaining favor in the eyes of humanity. We want to be remembered. We want someone to give a shit about who we are, who we were, and what we have become. I don't think that desire can ever be captured in science.
See, debating the point of life is philosophical, ie there are no effects on the world. Whether life "has a point" or not doesn't affect the world, does it?
Religions, though, make claims that affect the world.
Well, let us take the philosophical argument that we're all in the mind of some other entity. What does that effect? Absolutely nothing.
But say that we argue that the world is controlled by an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who demands tribute and requires we behave in a certain way. As you can see, Religion effects a change in how we behave, by making claims that affect the world.
Comments
I think the whole problem boils down to people talking a lot about things they not only don't know about, but don't even realize how little they know about them. Maybe this also has to do with experts often not even bothering to talk to commoners about their field of expertise, which may be caused by most people having no culture whatsoever when it comes to discussions. Flamewars are not just an internet phenomenon.
Edit: One sort of unrelated question: It seems to me that there is this huge conflict between science and religion in the US, it looks almost like there are two separate blocks. Is that the case, and why is it? I live in Bavaria, which is like the Texas of Germany, and I see little conflict between science and religion over here. Why is that?
You could at least have bothered to look things up at Wikipedia where it says:Scientific method and modern physics get along fine, despite modern physics being nondeterministic. I cannot be bothered to look for another source except Wikipedia, but I think it will do right now.
I am also not going to argue about the details here, because it is very far off topic, and because I will start learning about that at university shortly.
I think we can all live with "Current science no longer states the universe to be strictly deterministic."
Here are some quick examples of scientific studies of how TV and emotions interact. I haven't read any of these. They are just from the first page of a crappy Google search.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p111370_index.html
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15213260701532880?journalCode=mep
http://intl-crx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/105
http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1997/cjsm/v1n4/tsiotsou.htm
Nobody knows everything. Just because you don't know something, don't assume that nobody knows it, or it can't be known.
"This study seeks to test the effects of both live and breaking television news on viewers’ attention and memory. In addition, stories that evoke fear, anger, and disgust will be tested with the belief that each separate emotion has a different effect on information processing." This study is on attention, memory, and information processing. Fear, anger, and disgust were approximated by having participants fill in a 7-point rating scale with their opinions.
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15213260701532880?journalCode=mep
"This paper examines whether emotional message content alters the effects of structural complexity and information density on available resources, measured by secondary task reaction times (STRTs), and message encoding, measured by audio recognition." This study is on secondary task reaction times and audio recognition.
http://intl-crx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/105 This abstract provides limited information on the actual experiment. It also does not define how it is determined whether or not certain visuals are emotional.
http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1997/cjsm/v1n4/tsiotsou.htm
"The study investigated the effects of program-induced emotions (pleasure and arousal) on the memory of TV commercials." Pleasure and arousal were determined by having the subjects fill out a questionnaire. The statistics that the questionaire produced were then subjected to research. Well said.
Take the study of history, for instance. The study of history is valuable, but under most circumstances is not a science. You can't pick up a history book, note that Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo, and go, "Oh boy! Honey, you go get the 19th century Belgium ready, I'm going down to the basement to grab my Napoleon. I really want to try this!" History does repeat itself, but not in the sort of way that is intended when a thing is labeled repeatable scientifically. The study of history deals in themes, science deals in things. One couldn't say anything scientifically useful about the relation of credentialism in Confucian China with credentialism in the U.S of today, but one could say something historically useful. Why discard useful information simply because it is of one type instead of the other?
I suppose my beef is that many people use "science can explain everything" as shorthand for "nothing but science can explain anything", and that things which other methods can explain reasonably, coherently, and often quite effectively, have no legitimacy unless shoved somehow into the scientific framework.
As in Rym and jcc's arguments about history, the unstated point is that "science," more specifically the scientific method, is the way we pursue nearly all knowledge/data. This is, we gather and analyze data to form theories on the nature of reality (Physical Laws, Historical Fact, etc).
This is different from religion and philosophy, where there isn't the practice of testing facts and forming theories from those results. I believe Rym said it best on the last page: As you can see, science is fine because it makes its claims (on the nature of reality) based on evidence. Philosophy is fine because it makes no claims, based on no evidence. Religion is where we have a problem.
If one calls religion as such stupid, then one calls every religious person there is is stupid. This might be the case, for there are many stupid people on this earth, but I still think that such a drastic statement deserves a flawless deductive argumentation leading up to it.
And another thing I want to point out: The moralic restrictions and implications of religion are not simply made up as in someone crazy wrote a set of rules and threw it onto the street and people started worshipping it. Those are all guidelines that developed during the history of the religion in question, and it is observable how they have changed in the course of history. I, for one, don't want to live by an ancient set of rules, I rather make my own ones, but this is more a question of preference, so I don't think I'm better than someone who does.
Reading everything as if it were science is not necessarily the best approach, but some people just seem to take that for granted. You'd have to argue that this is the way to go about this first.
I live in the probably most conservative and religious state in Germany, which would be Bavaria. However, I can't observe any conflicts between science and religion here.
Explanation 1: No one notices that the two cannot live next to each other, and everyone over here is ignorant of this huge contradiction between religion and science. But the FRC forums, bastion of the wisest among the living, is able to sort it all out. It will just be a matter of time before Universities realize that (maybe someone should send them a link to our forums), and there will be a big death match between the scientific faculties and the faculty of theology. This epic fight will decide whether we will go back to the middle ages, or live in a scientific utopia with no more stupid people instead, and I will make a fortune selling beer and pretzels in the arena.
Explanation 2: Maybe the contradiction is not as clear and evident as you claim it is.
Explanation 3: Well, feel free to add your own.
It's not just christianity. Pick any religion you want, and I will tell you the things they believe that contradict with science. The only way to avoid a conflict is if you either make no claims, or only make claims that you can provide valid evidence for. It's really that simple.
There is a philosophical discipline called "language theory". You might not be decoding those writings correctly, therefore the discussion doesn't end with "cookies don't turn into zombie meat."
Like I said before, I am far from trying to defend religion and claiming there's nothing wrong with it. But just taking the bible, reading it and saying "haha, it says A here, but science says that's impossible, because it's really B" doesn't work, and you're doing it wrong.
And I won't even get into asking you to define what god is, what "to exist" means, and what "true and false" really are. Those are words, and there are concepts behind them. Those concepts are, however, not necessarily universal.
Suggestion: Find a theologist, and have a conversation with him. Actually, record it and put it on some feed, it might turn out very interesting.
I suspect you know as little or less about religion as I do, but you act like you knew what it was all about, have understood everything about it and know better. Again: Things might be more complex than you might think.
That said, it thus follows that all christians believe in supernatural beings that have never in human history been verifiably observed and that have historical evidence of secular origin. With the total lack of evidence for, coupled with the evidence against, the existence of these divine beings, it is perfectly clear that christianity is false. It makes false claims, and has no basis in logic or reason. To believe despite this is to deny logic and reason.
My criticism of religion is directed toward ALL christians. Every christian on this Earth is making false claims either to themselves or others. If they are not, then they are not actually christians.
Now, as my contention involves all the supernatural beliefs of all the religions man has concocted over the years, my criticism is directed more accurately toward all religion. A fundamentalist christian is no better or worse than a moderate christian: both believe in made-up fairytales.
The existence of free will is an area of contention where the evidence is inconclusive. Debating it is a matter half of science and half of philosophy: not religion.
Yes, the existence of a free will is part of religion. The free will, in other words, human responsibility, would be what the story with the snake and the apple is all about. But I agree, there is not much debate going on there.
I will say no more about religion, because we seem to be using different definitions. If you want to continue nevertheless, I would ask you to provide a definition that we can use as a base for the purpose of discussion. Otherwise, this won't lead anywhere.
If science cannot observe something, and by this I mean either it or its repercussions, even if it did exist, it doesn't matter for our purposes as humanity. If I told you that there was an invisible ghost monkey behind you right now, even if there was, if you could not use that information to make better informed decisions, it does not matter. However, this does not apply to things that are detected but not observed directly; I think this goes for black holes, but correct me if I'm wrong.
In a similar way, a statement can be made that the way the universe was formed involved a great deal of chance. At the same time, an argument can be made against that, in that if it did not exist, we wouldn't be here to talk about it, at least not in the way that we are now. In other words, I don't think anyone can legitimately speak on how time began, but instead how it developed into our present condition through the information we have about structures, processes, and the way things come to happen. In some cases, I think science possibly is flawed, much like trying to prove a rectangle is always a square because a square is always a rectangle. I don't think science is wrong, but there is a certain limit to it, and it's vital to understand science uses what it's trying to understand to even begin to comprehend it. It has a sort of similarity to self-awareness in the human brain.
I do think however that, while religion may not necessarily be entirely truthful, it still serves a purpose as something to motivate the human mind into action, driven by the instinct of survival. Churches and their kin aid the community. The real reason that religion is a problem comes from those who use it as an excuse, as an exception to the rule (not to mention pride
In the end, you have to ask yourself what the point of humanity is, which is a difficult question to answer even for religion. Is it to create a legacy? Is it to become continuously more efficient? Is it to try to find a reason for humanity to exist? Personally, I think it's related directly and indirectly to other humans; the dominating power that many people so want is only useful for gaining favor in the eyes of humanity. We want to be remembered. We want someone to give a shit about who we are, who we were, and what we have become. I don't think that desire can ever be captured in science.
I'm not saying there's a big "the point", I'm saying there is a point enough to continue on with life and enjoy the ride.
Religions, though, make claims that affect the world.
There's not a whole lot of point in arguing it though, at least if you want to change minds. Same goes to politics.
But say that we argue that the world is controlled by an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who demands tribute and requires we behave in a certain way. As you can see, Religion effects a change in how we behave, by making claims that affect the world.