I didn't realize this thread was still going. Glad it is, though.

You say that given the right conditions we can change all that. But we have not had the right conditions yet, have we? What exactly would those right conditions be, anyway? How can you be so sure you know? How indeed can you be sure that such conditions could ever even exist?

I don't know. You? Most people who believe in science are not nearly as full of hubris as you keep implying. Science has reivented itself many times; it has both refined and overturned theories over and over. But it's still the best source of truth we have.

I'm going to quote something you said in response to ru:

But we could be disagreeing about religion, war and peace, the media, sports, politics, or anything at all. There are disagreements that are not mended or resolved by science and about which science has nothing to say. Here is where the trouble really begins. This is the point of departure for all our great travails of strife and struggle, war and peace. This is our human nature.

Here is what I think you don't seem to get. Or maybe you do and just don't care, but I'll point it out anyway. How can two people communicate at all? People don't exist without our senses. If there are no images, sounds, sensations then there is no thought. What would we be thinking about, exactly? So the only basis for you and I to communicate is through our sensations of the world around us. Through reference to the world we both see. If the world we see around us is completely different, then there is no basis for communication. If I point to a mountain and you see a lake, we're not going to get anywhere. Luckily, we've found a way to prove things, it's called science. Sure, we have to make a general assumption here. We have to assume that the world around us that we sense is real and not illusion, that we aren't living in the matrix or something and that both of us actually exist. In other words, you have to assume that what we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel is real. That's it. I don't think that assuming these things is too much to ask... it's pretty much the only way to go about life.

In this way science is the very essence of communication. It is a methodical way of taking the subjectivity out of our senses. It provides a base upon which we can communicate because it reveals truth that we can agree upon simply through one small assumption that we all pretty much agree on anyway. Religion cannot do this. Why? Because it doesn't exist in the realm of senses. By it's very nature it contradicts the senses by removing the mechanisms of nature from something which we can observe. By doing so, it removes the ability for us to communicate in any effective manner because we no longer have a common base to work from. All science asks is that we assume what we see is real. All religion asks is that we ignore it. Science creates a basis for communication. Religion pulls it out from under us.

I feel like I can guess your response. You'll say: "Exactly! Most people are religious, so we can't communicate with each other, so we're all doomed." I'm not so sure about that. People will cling to deeply held beliefs very tightly, but I believe that people cling to comfort, security, and happiness even more tightly. In other words, people may not be swayed by the arguments of science, but they will be swayed by the results. Human nature can be ugly and mean, but one thing we aren't is stupid (comparitively). Why haven't we had a nuclear war yet? Mostly because even the most oppressive and poorly run regimes are too smart to start one because they know it will be just as bad for them as everyone else. Why is America, founded by some of the most deeply religious people on the planet, so overridingly secular now (and you can't tell me that the overriding American culture isn't secular)? Because it has followed from continually increasing comfort, security and (maybe) happiness in our lives.

And please don't try to argue that science hasn't brought these things. The industrialized world lives with more safety and comfort than the world has ever known.

And one last point:

I am in fact afraid we shall soon be going backwards simply from hubris and loss of such wisdom as humanity once cobbled together before science and scientism arrived.

What makes you so sure that "such wisdom as humanity once cobbled together before science and scientism arrived" is the best there is? How do you know? Was it hubris for man to stop hunting, scavenging and foraging for food and start growing crops? I'd call that a big step forward rather than a step back. Sure, with every step forward we have more and more opportunity to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons and all these things. But without progress our destruction is guaranteed. Perhaps by asteroid, perhaps by tectonic/volcanic activity... hell maybe we'll even get lucky and last until the sun expands to consume the earth. But if we wish to control our own fate, progress is the only answer. And if we destroy ourselves... well, at least we tried. What's really the difference between lasting a few million more years anyway? It's all just a blip in the whole scheme of things.