Physics or Religion - which will eventually disappear from the Human Experience and Activity first?
542312
please let it be religion after all the eons of hate, murder, and torture done in the name of some god let it end.
12701
Quantum Physics would say "no". It was long supposed that once we got down to a certain level, everything would be predictable, but as you may already know, quantum physics doesn't tell us yes or no - it gives us several statistical maybes and such.
296013
1) We ARE evolving. It's just a process that takes thousands of years to manifest itself. But yes, physically we will look slightly different in several hundred-thousand years, just like cavemen looked different from us.\n\n2) Music and wind can be detected, and measured (like those decibel-measuring tools in some school cafeterias, or wind-speed detectors in weather stations). Can God be measured or detected through science or observation?\n\n3) Love, although it has not been fully explained, is a feeling like many others, and goes back to our chemical and electric reactions between various neurons and neurotransmitters in our brain. Nothing too mysterious, really, just a way to get us to reproduce ;)\n\nThanks for asking our opinion politely, and not being a prick yourself by being overly preachy :)\n\nWhile I myself don't believe in God, I don't care what everyone else believes. If believing in God truly makes you a better person, and gives you peace of mind, then that's the best thing for you :) Just don't push it on me, and I'm A-OK with your beliefs.
143326
Science is a useless substitute for religion.\nReligion is a useless substitute for science.\n\nScience requires the tools of science. Religion requires the tools of religion. \n\nYou do not use a ruler to find the temperature or a screwdriver to measure air pressure. Both the ruler and the screwdriver are good tools, but each useless when used inappropriately for a task they\nwere never designed to accomplish.\n\nIn their purest forms science cannot prove or disprove religion and religion cannot prove or disprove science. They are two vastly different tools.
277847
Religion refers to the organization of people who think similarly. Spirituality is recognizing that something created us an watches over us. You dont have to have religion to be spiritual. Supernatural- simply things that humans dont understand. And superstition, is obsessive compulsive disorder and fear.
1050427
The onset of reality.  Honestly, I just realized how much religion contradicted science.  I saw religion as an antiquated idea that tried to explain the unexplainable.  Once science got out from under the control of religion, it flourished and started to push religion back into the dark corners of "the unknown", where it continues to kick and scream for every scrap of control it can get.\n\nAnd I also couldn't accept a god that was so cruel, arbitrary and uncaring.  Reading the OT, I know that this was a god with whom I wanted nothing to do.  Even reading the NT, reading very closely, I wasn't that thrilled.  If this is what god is, I want nothing to do with him.\n\nThat, and I met someone who was unapologetically athiest.  I realized then that it was OK, I could be one too.  I realized that being an athiest doesn't make you a satan worhiper who bites of the heads of babies.  Most true athiests that I've met have been much better people than the rest.  They just choose to accept responsablity for their own lives and live without superstition.\n\nThat being said, I do enjoy studying about mythology (in which category I include all religions.)  I love the whole Jungian/Campbell view of it and what it tells us about who we are as a people.  Neat stuff.
964817
Educate their children.  \n\nWe're doing that now, and it's only a matter of time.  I quite honestly see the end of religion within the next 100 years.\n\nRichard Dawkins was saying something similar just the other day.  I think it was in the Washington Post.  He is of the opinion that the majority of educated people in the US, even those that attend church, are really atheist/agnostic.  They just don't put much thought into it, and/or don't want to admit it, due to the social stigma surrounding it.\n\nI think that's entirely plausible.  But regardless, as our children recieve better education, and the generations continue to grow intellectually, eventually, people will simply be too embarrassed to continue to believe in a god.
240812
Both are theories that come from the human mind.\n\n"Quantum physics" is a theory that has been developed by people through observation, reason, and experiment.\n\n"God" is another theory that has been developed by people via means which I am not personally familiar with.\n\nTheories are ideas which are proposed, but not necessarilly true. They might or might not be believed by the people who propose them.\n\nA belief is something which is thought to be true, but not known to be true, by the believer.
575941
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
152747
Actually religion is much older than science. What the ancients could not explain otherwise was attributed to a creation of a higher power (read God). Scientists are slowly discovering the different facets of this higher power by applying science and technology
683844
Science is a concept use by this level of mankind, which is proven fact and experimental basis. Many unexplained phenomena or ( the future science which not yet proven ), scientist will push it into the category of mythology, religion sort of thing. Religion is not created by man, is from another civilization of other time space and only few scientist understand that, as different religion is from  different civilization in space time. And we our soul is origin from that part of time and space. To earth is to purify our energy then we can up to higher level else will reborn here over again.
702657
it would be cosmology - because it has only just began to be explored, examining dark matter, behaviour of the largest things in the universe, or possibly quantum mechanics - which deals with the smallest pieces of the universe and how they interact. \n\nCreationism is not a science its a belief system that is around 2000 years old, If you do the research you will discover that one of the two sciences i have mentioned above are the most recently discovered, started and recognised.\n\nanything else has been around for a very long time.\n\nApart from genetic research which has been around only slightly longer than the sciences above,
953850
Physics is the study of science\nReligion is the study of philosophy\nJust before the Dark ages they had a parting of the ways
729726
yes definitely\n\nthere are some questions that science just cant provide answers to, and until we have scientific proof of everything (which i dont personally think will ever happen, but thats just my opinion) there will always be room for religion.\n\nand anyway - religion provides existence with a meaning. if we just took a scienfitic view - we are born, we exist, we die. and thats it. so whats the point? why bother being nice to people?  why bother with trying to gain respect/earn money/build relationships? sure we're all going to die anyway.\n\nor at least, thats what science says. religion begs to differ.\n\nand by the way - before anyone criticises me - im a scientist.
473970
This is really not a physics question. What happens to the human species really is going to depend on many many factors, most of which are socio-geopolitical and not physical factors.\n\nBut if the question is about what happens to a particular human life in the final end, then this is a question for the medical sciences, and not physics.\n\nHowever, I will say this as it relates to physics: the existence of life and particularly intelligent life in the universe tells us that the universe follows rules strictly and absolutely. Because if it doesn't, life would simply not be possible. Atoms may fly apart; object may disappear into thin air, chaos would reign supreme. But this is not the case. The universe is a very stable and orderly place. The are patterns everywhere. And that is what life is - a pattern, an extremely complex orderly pattern.\n\nWe humans are one of those very complicated and orderly patterns. We are the end-result of a 14.7 billion year process - a self-replicating pattern that can recognize itself. So what is the final of human life? We may all die, but the pattern will continue to evolve... if not here on Earth, then somewhere else in the universe.
899015
You can choose to use either your (1) faith or (2) reason.  If you choose to use only faith, then you must ignore the physical world about you.\n\nReligious faith is completely compatible with science as long as religion stays exclusively in the spiritual realm and science stays exclusively in the physical realm.  It is only when religion pontificates about the physical world or science speculates about the non-physical that we run into trouble.
833483
Yes, assuming you actually meant "complement" not "compliment". \n\nPhysics will always leave some things unanswered.  No matter how much we understand, there is always another question, and a bit more that is unknown.  Some people find this circumstance uncomfortable. For them, religion can help them feel at ease. \n\nIf you mean as a part of science itself, the answer is "no." though you might say this is a semantic argument.  The moment an empirical observable enters the picture, it becomes a part of science. \n\n For instance, general relativity cannot describe the nature of the universe prior to the planck time.  A theory of quantum gravity is necessary for that.  Until then, one can easily say "God created the cosmic egg which expanded in the Big Bang" but that doesn't really help science move forward.  Eventually, maybe we unify gravity and the other forces and come up with a theory of quantum gravity. That will likely push our understanding closer to the origin, and maybe all the way to the origin of our universe, but probably won't explain the generation of the framework of natural laws that permitted our universe to originate. Again, you have room for a religious ultimate cosmology to explain where that framework came from, and again it does not help the physics at all, but will make some people feel better.\n\nReligion is not a part of the scientific method because it includes suppositions that are not based on the cycle of observe, hypthesize, test, observe. As soon as an element of religion enters that cycle, in my opinion it is a part of Physics.  I suppose you could say that Physics can be a subset of religion, but most religious dogmas conflict with science at some level; it does not have to be this way, but tends to be.  Note that I said "religious dogmas" and not "religions."  As near as I see it, most religions can get along side by side with Physics, it is only when people start making literal interpretations of religious teachings as descriptions of the physical world that they sometimes run afoul of science.