Sure, but only if you can see the engine or motor vehicle working and not if you just saw it standing there would it lack mystery as to its function, but further investigation would be needed to understand its functioning. Similarly, just looking at the surface of a brain doesn't tell you it is working or what it's doing. And the same goes for just looking at an animal or a human just standing there. Even if you see the animal or human moving that doesn't tell you anything about its cardio-vascular, respiratory and digestive functions.

I don't think so; in any case it's not just a matter of knowing you are looking at an engine or whole motor vehicle but of being able to explain all its macroscopic functions, interactions and inter-relations in terms of the basic understanding of fundamental particles.

Even if it were possible, it would be such a complex task, I think it could hardly be referred to as "reductionism". All models are reductive, and they are reductive for the purposes of simplifying explanations, not rendering them unnecessarily complex.

We are blowing through the world’s fossil fuels and mineral gradients in a couple of hundred. — apokrisis

That's true, and I wonder if we would have achieved such spectacular levels of "entropification" if we hadn't discovered fossil fuels. That discovery has arguably enabled a massive population explosion.

Or perhaps our symbolic capabilities would have made that outcome inevitable, just coming to pass over a longer period. Symbolic language seems to have allowed us to be too adaptable for our own long term good. Being higher on the abstraction scale is not necessarily a good thing, it seems. When animals, notably apex predators, proliferate and overuse abundant resources, they are naturally knocked back, but we are so clever at abstract thinking we have so far avoided that.

Thanks for the link.

The abstract looks interesting, but I couldn't access the full article.

Interesting point about the technological destruction of morality. Have we climbed all the way up the ladder and reached the level of the social insects? Those insects don't have parties, entertainment, festivals, the arts, religion, science, philosophy and history though.

Sure, the way I understand it is that animals also have a self/world model but it is not symbolically reflective. So, with symbolic language, i.e. with human culture, comes a complexification of the more basic pre-linguistic animal self/ world modeling.

That brings with it a qualitative difference as well; a profound difference in that we now have the arts, the sciences, religion, philosophy and history. So yeah, I agree this is also a difference in "level".

That said, I hesitate to say the human level is "higher" or "better" than the animal level, rather than just more complex. which is pretty much what I meant by "amplification".

As I say above, Metzinger gives a neuro-phenomenological account. The socio-cultural aspect is simply an amplification of the self/ world modeling. So, of course a detailed sociological account is also possible, but the fact that it is not Metzinger's focus does not detract from his work. I don't follow you in thinking there is one overarching account, different accounts are valid from different perspectives.

The functioning of an internal combustion engine motor vehicle cannot be understood in terms of the fundamental particles that constitute it. So, all you seem to be saying is that there are different levels of explanation when you get to macroscopic objects and their relations. And how much more complex than a motor vehicle is a mammal? A human?

I read Metzinger as saying essentially this. Up to and including the self/world distinction as a bodily modelling process with environmental feedbacks. — fdrake

I agree; I see little difference between what @apokrisis is saying about the self and world being a modeling relation and what is presented by Metzinger in Being No One.

I'd say Metzinger is not concerned with the metaphysical and scientific angles on the self/world modeling relation which you like to explore; he focuses on a phenomenological account.

:up:

I guess I am unclear about how empiricism can be said to have a firm traction on reality if that reality is provisional or, shall we say, derivative? — Tom Storm

Right, I see what you mean. However, I wouldn't say that empirical reality is derivative, more like it is one aspect of the real. I mean, sure, it is, to some degree, constructed by us, but we are real beings. Likewise, the realities or "unwelts" of other creatures are fully real, being as they, different aspects of the real.

That, for what it is worth, is how I look at it anyway,

Is there any specific problem or issue you are able to identify, or is it that you find it emotionally unsatisfying; you want more?

So to break this down, Kant seems to be saying we have no choice but to accept empiricism even if it isn't a reflection of things as they are in themselves?

I'm not quite sure how sensory experiences are 'real' given his model - does this mean they are all that is available to us and produced by our interaction with noumena which are real? The reality of sense data seems to be a 'translation' or interpretation of the real. — Tom Storm

The way I understand it, sensory experiences are real, in fact it is from sensory appearance that the notion of reality is derived. But since we don't know what is "behind" sensory experience, and since we cannot but think that what appears to us has its own existence independently of us, and since that existence cannot be the same as the appearances, we should acknowledge that the in itself nature of what appears is unknowable to us. although it's nature as it appears to us is of course knowable.

I think when Kant says that the empirical, what is perceived, is real, and the transcendental is ideal, he means that sensory experience is real for us, in fact it is the very prototypical exemplar of reality, and that the in itself, which is transcendental to sensory experience can only be ideal for us, meaning that we can only have ideas about what it might be, and all of those ideas are groundless. This is looking at it from our perspective.

If we try to think from an absolute perspective, and having acknowledged that what appears to us is conceptually shaped by us, this could be reversed; the empirical as we understand it then would be ideal (insofar as it is mediated by ideas) and the transcendental (about which we can have no cogent idea at all beyond that it must somehow be) would be the real. Though Kant didn't present this reversal as far as I know.

I heard Bernado Kastrup say (some YouTube interview) that Kant is not an idealist. What do you think? — Tom Storm

Kant says he is an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist. I think for Kant sensory appearances are real.

This concedes my point about Kant: he is using phenomena to reverse engineer that there are things-in-themselves while claiming that phenomena do not tell us anything about things-in-themselves. — Bob Ross

No, Kant is merely saying that if there are appearances, then logically speaking, there must be things which appear, whatever the in itself existence of what appears might be.

We know there are things which appear as phenomena, but we also know that these appearances are not the things, and that we cannot know what the things are apart from how they appear to us.

They can’t be groundless if you consider reason a valid method of gaining knowledge, which you will have to if you agree with science. — Bob Ross

No, I won't have to concede that, because I don't think reason without sense data produces knowledge. It is not a valid inference from the fact that sense data combined with reason produces knowledge to a claim that reason on its own can produce knowledge.

I think it all depends on what you mean by "qualitative seeing". People with colour agnosia can "guess" with not perfect, but greater than random accuracy, what colour card is being held before their eyes, for example. They are not actually aware of seeing the colour, but that greater than random accuracy of guessing shows that the data which would normally produce an experience of colour is registered by the brain and can be more or less reliably accessed even though the conscious qualitative experience is absent.

My point is that I would not refer to the brain's mere registration of the data as qualitive experience or seeing. If you don't agree, then all we will be arguing about is terminology, and there cannot be a definitive right answer. So, I'm saying that to me, it makes no sense to speak of qualitive experience in the absence of awareness of that experience.

Quality is a judgement which is all in the conscious modelling.

What is the “conscious modelling”? — Bob Ross

Conscious modeling is conceptual modeling made possible by re-cognition. We say things have qualities because we recognize similarities. Take red as an example; we call red things red because they look similar to one another, and there is a great range of different red. But on either side towards yellow and blue we reach points where we would say a thing is orange or mauve or purple.

How does how we live change if idealism is true? — Tom Storm

I think this is the pertinent question. What is important to humans is how the world seems to humans because that is all we have to work with. The world seems physical not ideal, but that still doesn't warrant asserting the physical as substance, even if that seems to make more sense than asserting the mental as substance; in my view both claims are groundless, or even worse, meaningless, and I don't think the question is; per se, very important except to obsessive philosophers who cannot rest until they know the truth. No doubt some people may have other reasons for wanting the ultimate nature of reality to be either physical or mental.

For example, it seems to me that very often, if not always, the motivation for believing in idealism is the hope that the self does not perish with the body. If one feels incurably distressed by the thought of the death of the self, then perhaps the best thing would be to comfort oneself with the belief that the self continues after the death of the body, and this belief might seem unsustainable alongside the belief that the world is ultimately physical through and through.

That said, holding to idealism would only become harmful if one devalued this life in consequence, Personally I think that learning to live always right in the present moment, and thus experientially 'out of time', is a worthy aim, since I think this is the only eternity we can sensibly hope for. That said, I respect the right of others to believe in an afterlife, provided their beliefs do no harm, that they do not, for example, contribute to complacency concerning the very real problems that afflict not only human life, but the whole of life on this planet.

If it makes my initial point any clearer for you, Janus, I reiterate that your equating "anti-theism to theism" is as much a false equivalence as equating (e.g.) anti-dogmatism to dogmatism (or anti-supernaturalism to supernaturalism). — 180 Proof

Out of those three, only dogmatism (defined as the belief that one knows what others should think) is arguably an evil, per se. So anti-dogmatism thereby is arguably a good. Theism and supernaturalism are not necessarily dogmatisms; people may believe in those without thinking that others should believe in them. If anti-theism and anti-supernaturalism are dogmatic, then they are arguably evils and worse than non-dogmatic theism and supernaturalism. If anti-theism and anti-supernaturalism are merely positions that one holds personally and does not claim that others should hold those positions, then they are morally equivalent to non-dogmatic theism and supernaturalism, I hope that makes clear for you what my position is. And note I don't require you to agree with me, but in my view if you don't then your thinking is narrow-minded if not dogmatic, because you are assuming that theism and supernaturalism are evils tout court.

Theists who experience your law preventing them from compelling their children to experience their gods glory by attending their church, would definitely label you a fanatic, you fanatic! — universeness

Right, but I don't think it is dogmatic, but rather I think that not forcing children to do what they don't want to except in practical life matters where it may be necessary, is fair-mindedness towards children and even if I am being dogmatic, I have already acknowledged that I think it is OK to oppose dogma with anti-dogma, intolerance with anti-intolerance and fanaticism with anti-fanaticism. Now you might characterize those "antis" as dogma, fanaticism and intolerance respectively, but if they are they are of the good kind in my view, because they uphold the principle of "live and let live" and I think of that as applying to all but those who will not live and let live.

Yes, Kant himself says that the desire to, and idea that we can, discover a metaphysics which is more than merely a metaphysics of possible experience, is an inescapble aspect of the rational mind; if I remember rightly he refers to it as a kind of inherent pre-critical "illusion" of reason.

If so, then how do you know they even exist? — Bob Ross

The existence of things in themselves is an inference from the invariance and intersubjective commonality of sensations.

. I submit to you that Analytic Idealism, that reality is fundamentally a mind, meets the aforementioned requirements better than physicalism (and any other possible metaphysical theory). — Bob Ross

And I submit to you that all ideas of substance are groundless. The world seems physical and substantial and from that experience and the reificational potentiality of language we naturally extrapolate the notion of substance. We really have no idea what either physicality or mentality are in any substantial sense.

I would argue that they do not “see” in the same manner (i.e., one is qualitatively seeing while the other is just quantitatively processing its environment), so I think you are equivocating when using the term “seeing” in this sentence to refer to both. — Bob Ross

I would argue that if there is no awareness of seeing that it makes no sense to speak of qualitative seeing.

I think it makes more sense, given that blindsight only demonstrates a disassociation with one’s experience, that the person simply isn’t meta-conscious of or perhaps able to identify with their qualitative experience. — Bob Ross

Again I would say that being disassocited from experience is the same as having no (qualitative) experience. Quality is a judgement which is all in the conscious modelling.

Could'nt resist this one Jamal Do you think this statement by Janus makes him a fanatic? — universeness

Why would thinking that children should not be forced to do what they don't want to make me a fanatic? And why appeal to @jamal for support?

Some of the conversation here has got me thinking. In my extremely secular milieu, militant atheism seems ... silly. But in, say, the US Bible belt or the Middle East, religion is still a very big deal and causes a lot of problems. — Jamal

I agree, and I can understand being fanatically opposed to fanaticism, which has actually been my main point. It's the same as being tolerant of everything but intolerance.

He did not equate them, he compared them. — universeness

He equated theism with fascism and sexism in the sense that what he said assumed that theism is an evil just as fascism and sexism are evils. Read it again.

How would you respond to a fascist that called you a fanatic and a militant due to your anti-fascist views.
I am sure this was quite a common occurrence between neighbours, in 1939 Germany. — universeness

So, you think fascism is, only relatively speaking, an evil? I certainly wouldn't have picked you for being a relativist.

K.I.S.S (Keep it simple stupid!) — universeness

Sure, keep it simple if it's a simple topic or you are addressing simpletons, and don't unnecessarily complicate any explanation. In any case 'simple' does not have the same meaning as 'simplistic'.

the second holds as his inalienable right to live his life as he thinks he ought to, and defends the rights of other to live as they see fit. — Vera Mont

That's not how I would define a miltant anti-theist. A militant anti-theist is against all religion and will fight to eradicate it. A fanatical anti-theist may not fight to eradicate religion but will speak disparagingly against all theism. It's not a case of "live and let live" with fanatics, they will be in your face if you represent what they oppose, even if they don't attack you, or what you represent, physically. Bear in mind I am not opposing fanaticism being opposed by fanaticism.

I disagree with some of them to various degrees, but I respect the hell out of his consistency of conviction and his right to express them any way he wants to. — Vera Mont

Sure, I respect his right to present his views too. Do you respect the right of others for calling out his views for being fanatical?

Didn't sway him one iota, while I did revisit my own position on a couple of issues. — Vera Mont

Fair enough, but I wouldn't characterize that as losing the argument.

do believe I have said - up to four times each - everything I can possibly contribute here, and so it's time to retire from the field. — Vera Mont

:up: I feel pretty much the same at this juncture.

No, not that bit! I've got that down cold. It's the rapprochement with bible-thumpers I don't know how to do and am not sure I could stomach. — Vera Mont

I don't expect to be able to reason with fundamentalist theists any more than I do with miltitant anti-theists.

Oh, right. Oppose universeness. Yah, done that. Lost the argument. Retreated in disarray. Been called Brave Sir Robin by my pseudo-friends ever since. Not an experience I care to repeat. — Vera Mont

I'm going to treat the above response as serious. If I'm mistaken about that then more fool me.

I'll grant that universeness is an ideologue, a fanatical anti-theist, but I don't think I'd call him or her a militant anti-theist. I doubt you lost the argument, because I don't believe any cogent or non-simplistic arguments have been presented by the person in question. I am curious as to which "pseudo-friends" you are referring to.

In any case if you can't reason with someone, you can't reason with them, and it's not your fault. For example, if someone says that religion has been and still is a net negative for humanity that is just an opinion unless backed up with data from extensive case studies. If it's just an opinion, the opiniated person is entitled to it, but as I see it are not to be taken seriously if they won't or can't provide convincing argument or evidence to support their opinions.

Well, I'd agree that in part it is a matter of personal preferences, but that's kind of the tip of the iceberg, of subconscious factors impacting our reasoning. — wonderer1

I agree that what might seem like personal preference is not free from other influences, but that is a whole different can of worms.

Of course! Why haven't we thought of that? You start and show us how it's done. — Vera Mont

What you've never thought that you should acknowledge that your reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased? Are you unable to do that without my help?

What, like atheists? — Vera Mont

If the militant ideology is anti-theist, then it should be opposed by atheists if they are opposed to militant ideologies tout court. If they are not opposed to militant ideologies tout court then of course they won't oppose a militant anti-theist ideology. You really should have been able to work that out for yourself.

Right, and if all parties could acknowledge that their reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased, not based on purely rational thought, but on personal preference, it might help folks to understand one another's positions more, and thus lessen the social divisions, which only seem to be getting greater.

That seems a strange question to ask. The answer seems obvious: by anyone who isn't indoctrinated by, or complicit with, the militant ideology.

I am fairly sure in life we have emotional impulses (inclinations/interests) and we fill these in with reasoning after the fact. My wording is a bit clumsy, but you know what I mean? — Tom Storm

This is not addressed to me, but I think I know what you mean, and I agree.

And your suggestion as to how to diminish the division is to shut down opposition to rising militant religiosity? — Vera Mont

No, I think rising miltitant ideology in any form should be opposed.

Being an anti-fascist is better than being a fascist. Do you agree? — universeness

I already pointed out that 180s argument, by implication, equates fascism with theism, and by extension anti-fascism with anti-theism., and he claimed I was changing the subject. It is not a given that theism, per se, is an evil, whereas it is a given that fascism is. In any case why are you talking about fascism when the subject is theism? It is not me who is changing the subject.

The operative word there appears to be : insofar
which makes the equation
theist dogma = atheist dogma
a damned lopsided one. — Vera Mont

Theist dogma has been around longer than atheist dogma, and has, of course, historically done more harm. Perhaps it is still doing more harm today, since atheist dogma is not institutionalized like theist dogma is. The Catholic and other churches apparently have covered up an endemic practice of pedophilia, and that is a horrible practice that should be condemned. But I don't see that as a reason to condemn the catholic church as a whole, and certainly not theism as a whole.

It's a very complicated and nuanced issue and I don't believe it is possible to accurately measure the current net harm of theism vs atheism. As an atheist myself, my main point is that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about what they believe, so I think, for example, that children should not be indoctrinated either way, although it is inevitable that they will be influenced by their parents. I actually think it should be illegal for parents to force children to go, or not go, to church, although of course that would be a hard law to enforce adequately.

Human life is messy and will remain so into the future I believe. I just don't see religion as a major part of the huge suite of problems humanity currently faces.

The rise of religious nationalist movements in countries where poverty is rampant is no surprise given the human propensity under adversity to turn to religion. The only thing that could go towards solving this problem that I can think of would be increased general prosperity and given that that is a pipe dream in a world of rapidly diminishing resources and growing population, there would not seem to be much that militant atheism could contribute to the situation.

I actually think there is little point to this whole subject, at best it is a diversion from the really pressing issues, and at worst it contributes to divisions that are already growing everywhere due to the inevitably increasing hardships humanity is facing..

If all you are advocating is that people become better educated, then I have no argument with that. That said, there are plenty of highly educated theists, so I don't there is much evidence that being highly educated will lead to people rejecting their religious beliefs.

I'll take that change of subject as your concession of my point. — 180 Proof

Strange that you should that what I said was a change of subject.

:up:

I think that it's valid to state that it does not definitively follow, that anti-theism is as bad as theism. — universeness

Insofar as either stance dictates to others, or indoctrinates them, as to what they should believe, they are as bad as each other.

:rofl:

:up: I agree that people are not as rational as they imagine. Also, rationality as a principle of argumentation is really just being consistent and coherent in your thinking, and says nothing about the premises. A rational argument can be based on unsound premises; many are. The premises themselves are often emotionally driven, and in any argument are not rationally supported by the argument itself, lest the argument be circular.

Thanks ND.

That amounts to saying that theism is the moral equivalent of nazism or sexism. :roll:

No. Not my argument at all. I have said more than once, that I am not even interested in who the good guys are. — unenlightened

Nor am I; I thought you were identifying the dogmatic aspect of anti-theism as being no better than the dogmatic aspect of theism, and basically identifying dogma, which is always based on literalist reading, as being the problem in the sense that it creates fundamentalism. I mean in your OP you explicitly state that atheist dogma created fundamentalism; are you now backing away from that?

People who have experienced more pain, humiliation, discrimination and social rejection on the basis of their lack of faith do tend to be more strongly outspoken against the religion which subjected them to those experiences — Vera Mont

Maybe there's more of that in the US than here in Australia; I haven't encountered it to be honest, except perhaps among extremist sects like the Plymouth Brethren. And I haven't been referring to people who have experienced that and are justifiably angry; I have been referring to people on both sides who dogmatically they know what humanity would be better of with. Of course, we all know humanity would be better off without extremist sects, but that is not what I'm addressing.

No, it's far more often derision or contempt of what other do believe - or hypocritically claim to believe but do not act if they believed. And it is a political stance, because the issues in which they were/are the victims are politically enacted. — Vera Mont

I don't believe that the kinds of victims that you are referring here constitute the majority of anti-theists.

The social divisions are deep and long-standing; they were here long before any of us. And they are not open to "solution" when the oppressor doesn't merely refuse to yield an inch, but is presently, relentlessly, tightening its stranglehold. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights — Vera Mont

I've already acknowledged that theocracy, or the politization of religion in any form is a problem, so that's not what I'm referring to. I agree the divisions are long standing, but it doesn't follow that deepening them will be a move towards social harmony.

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy.
— Janus

I really don't think that's either currently nor historically accurate. (FFS, don't go down the Stalin-hole!) — Vera Mont

What I say there may have come across the wrong way due to a possible terminological ambiguity. What I meant was that a government that enforces law in accordance with religious dogma is not worse than a government which enforces law in accordance with anti-religious dogma. The kind of government I am talking about would be the opposite of a theocracy which mandates religion, and its involvement in politics by banning religion altogether, and disallowing any political opinions which are religiously motivated.

It's one thing to disallow the legal enforcement or political mandating of religiously motivated discrimination against, for example LGBT people, and another to legally enforce disallowing anyone to even hold or express such personal views publicly. The latter, no matter how distasteful you might find the views to be, is anti-democratic.

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy, as I intended the term, would be one which banned religion altogether. Would you want that?

Like I said before: there is a difference between not having subjective (qualitative) experience and being unable to identify it. I would argue that the blindsight person is still qualitatively seeing, they just don’t identify themselves as seeing. — Bob Ross

A robot, just like the person who suffers from visual agnosia can see and respond to what they are seeing, but do not have the self-reflective awareness of seeing. The way I interpret this is that both lack subjective experience (of seeing). To put it another way, both the robot and the blindsight person do not know that they can see.

If a person suffered agnosia in regard to all their senses, including proprioception and interoception, it would seem hard to say how they would differ from a robot that had functional equivalents of all the human senses, that is a robot that could respond to tastes, smells, tactile feels, sounds, and sights, as well as proprioceptive and interoceptive data.

Let's get this clear. If atheism is simply a lack of believe in God, then I am an atheist because I don't believe there is a God. The next step would be to believe that there is no God, and I don't take that step. I don't have a settled opinion on the matter.

I think what @unenlightened (he can correct me if I am getting this wrong) was aiming at in creating this thread was anti-theism, and that is dogma, just as much as theism is, taking both as political stances; as claims as to what others should believe. This kind of theistic or ant-theistic dogmatism from either side is socially divisive, and is part of the problem, not part of a solution. To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy.

Oh, I apologize: I must have misunderstood. If you would like, then I can resume our conversation by responding to your original post (that we left off on)? It is entirely up to you and what you are comfortable with. — Bob Ross

No need for any apology Bob.

Perhaps it would be better to start afresh and in a more concrete way. You seem to be saying that by virtue of feeling our basic existences which you would characterize as "being a mind" (?) we can confidently extrapolate to a view of the basic nature of the cosmos. Are there other steps that need to be added in there or is that it?

You have a higher opinion of general human nature and potential than I do. I agree with Spinoza: “Everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare.”

Your bad attempts to goad me are just that, bad attempts, but then you do use a two faced god as your representation image. Perhaps you are just trying to live up to that image. — universeness

Yes, I was trying to goad you, though not to defensiveness or anger but to attempt to make an actual argument and come up with some actual facts instead of continuing to present mere assertions. Apparently, you can't do that, so the rational thing to do would be to admit that, let go of your baseless and ugly fanaticism and take a more reasonable and humane approach; but that will take some humility...and resorting to defensive ad hominems won't help you get there.

'Thou shalt not think for thyself' – no thanks. — 180 Proof

Of course, that's fine for you, and for me. What percentage of the population do you think can, and wants to, think for itself?

All my family were non-believers to a lesser degree and in the case of my mother, around the same 99.999% conviction level as I. — universeness

I.
I wont start to list and post evidence to respond against your:
I just don't see religion as being a major contributor to the array of problems humanity faces.
— Janus

I realise I would be wasting my time. — universeness

That's all right; there is always the odd "exception that proves the rule". (Come to think of it, I don't know what that little ole chestnut means, but it sounds nice).

Sounds like an admission of inability to me, given that you are always crowing about arguing against those who you believe won't change their minds, for the benefit of other readers. A real evangelist you are, but unfortunately without substantive evidence or argument, which is not an uncommon attribute with evangelists.

What I really meant was that unless either of us can come up with some new and convincing arguments, neither of us seems likely to change their mind. So, I wasn't calling a halt to the conversation tout court.

I've enjoyed conversing with you, Bob, on account of your being able to engage without distorting what your interlocutor is saying, and to remain patient and civil throughout.

I also think it is highly unlikely that either science or religion will cease to be major aspects of human life as long as civilization as we know it is able to continue. If civilization collapses, science may fall with it, but I think in that scenario religion would gain an even stronger grip.

What about 'magical thinking' 'delusion' and 'willful ignorance' – you don't think they are "major contributors to the array of problems humanity faces"? And whether or not religion causes them, it exacerbates these atavistic tendencies, no? — 180 Proof

I can't think of any specific major problems caused by magical thinking, and I think it, delusion and willful ignorance are primordial features of human psychology.

The percentage of humanity motivated by rational thought is probably rather small, and i don't think this necessarily has much to do with religion. religion may be one of the manifestations of this predominent irrational element in human nature, and also may feedback into it to some extent.

Probably most people don't care to much about science as aworldview motivator, they just want to enjoy its technological benefits, while also fearing its destructive potentials; more destructive weaponry, including most notably the horrors of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Also, chemical pollution is seen as a major problem, and even the benefits of increased prosperity and medical technology have contributed to the burgeoning population that is, in itself contributing to the depleting of resources, destruction of habitat and so on.

I think the major problems humanity faces are the result of selfishness, greed, indifference to others, lack of compassion, complacency, addiction to comfort, habitual behavior, resistance to change and many other contributing negative traits.

I think religion will fall away when and if people no longer need it.