Can religion coexist with science?

It’s contingent on accepting fact over fiction. We have a large part of society that truly believes they do not need to be concerned with the world as it is now—today—here—now.

We have another part of society that believes their religion and god(s) afford them a higher role in society, over those of us that do not subscribe to their religions.

We have another part of society that uses their religion and god(s) as political platform for constituting social order through fear and oppression.

We have another part of society that thinks, since their religion and god(s) are benign (from a contemporary standpoint, due to years of amendments, removing all traces of historical violence ), they can supersede fact with fiction by remaining passive.

We have another part of society that uses religion and god(s) for capital gain through commercialization of hope and fear.

As our knowledge grows, and we get better at sharing our knowledge with each other, in order to refute and disprove facts and fiction, we should discover something more useful—ideally—

Why do we avoid blaming—the blame—religion, politricks

It is a manifestation of people unable to deal with both real events requiring action, and real emotions that deal with reactions.

It is, in my opinion, a mass-psychosis induced by a generation* brought up entirely on media screens, unfettered by the real—unabated processing and absorption of information—as spectators only. Life-experience is traded out for video snippets, sound-bites, and hashtags. None of which provide insight; wisdom; sagacity.

Conviviality vs. truth; because on TV, everyone has a clever quip—an obvious insight—an amicable solution—nobody gets hurt when the studio lights go dark.

Conversely, there are many people working for the media that incite riot and innuendo as professional pretenders. They work for agendas, maximizing our attention on narrowed and limited ideas.

We’ve unsuccessfully moved from being noise junkies to noise producers—trading our value centers for contrived idealisms. We are coming dangerously close to losing our ability to provide well-thought and informed ideas—

Let alone, long-term memory retention of the things we’ve created. Their respective failures and successes are instantly magnified and then consequently reduced to nothing, tossed out, and overwritten. As a rapid-prototyping creative democracy approaches, we forget before we’ve learned. The most precious of commodities; exchanging, implementation, and advancement of ideas through fair and ubiquitous streams of information can potentially hurt us when we can’t objectively review and participate with the abstract world.

As the micro-centralized, neo-feeling, thought-idealists collect, where or how, do we continue to provide unlimited access and information through a synchronized operating system (the internet) without censoring people and creating the same depreciated socio-economical walls that exist offline?

Youth is conflated with vulnerability, amplified by predators still politricking the system. But this time around, we’ve given our attention to social networks that censor our thoughts like authoritarian aristocrats who have no intention of working with us, but re-education is fine.

If we can’t learn to cooperate, we’ll find ourselves under the thumb of those who are more comfortable and happy to control your life for you. If we continue to mis-categorize our language and emotions—if we can’t address issues as they are, we can’t provide tangible solutions.

We must learn to contend with it everyday. Most importantly, we must all be more informed about the ideas we’re exposed too. The You; We; Me and I in media will always lead to Us.

*Young and old


The Decline of Heroes


Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

” For The Crisis of the Old Order, the first volume in his continuing study of the Rooseveltian era, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., won the Society of American Historian’s Francis Parkman Prize. His The Age of Jackson, published in 1945, won the Pulitzer Prize. Like his father, who has written fifteen important social and historical studies, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., is professor of history at harvard University. He is married and has four children.

Ours is an age without heroes–and, when we say this, we suddenly realize how spectacularly the world has changed in a generation. Most of us grew up in a time of towering personalities. For better or for worse, great men seemed to dominate our lives and shape our destiny. In the United States we had Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt. In Great Britain, there were Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. In other lands, there were Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Clemenceau, Ghandhi, Kemal, Sun Yatsen. Outside of politics there were Einstein, Freud, Keynes. Some of these great men influenced the world for good, others for evil; but, wether for good or for evil, the that each had not died at birth made a difference, one believed, to everyone who lived after them.

Today no one bestrides our narrow world like a colossus; we have no giants who play roles which one can imagine no one else playing in their stead. There are a few figures on the margin of uniqueness, perhaps: Adenauer, Nehru, Tito, De Gaulle, Chiang, Kai-Shek, Mao Tse-tung. But there seem to be none in the epic style of those mighty figures of our recent past who seized history with both hands and gave it an imprint, even a direction, which it otherwise might not have had. As De Gaulle himself once remarked on hearing of Stalin”s death, “The age of giants is over.” Whatever one thought, wether one admired or detested Roosevelt or Churchill, Stalin or HItler, one nevertheless felt the sheer weight of such personalities on one’s own existence. We feel no comparable perssures today. Our own President, with all his pleasant qualities, has more or less explicitly renounced any desire to impress his own views on history. The Macmillans, Khurshchevs and Gronchis have measurably less specific gravity than their predecessors. Other men could be in their places as leaders of America or Britain or Russia or Italy without any change in the course of history. Why ours should thus be an age without heroes, and whether this condition is good or bad for us and for civilization, are topics worthy of investigation.

Why have giants vanished from our midsts? One must never neglect the role of accident in history; and accident no doubt plays a part here. But too many accidents of the same sort cease to be wholly accidental. One must inquire further. Why should our age not only be without great men but even seem actively hostile to them? Surely one reason we have so few heroes now is precisely that we had so many a generation ago. Greatness is hard for common humanity to bear. As Emerson said, “Heroism means difficulty, postponement of praise, postponement of ease, introduction of the world into the private apartment, introduction of eternity into the hours measured by the sitting-room clock.” A world of heroes keeps people from living their own private lives.

Moreover, great men live dangerously. They introduce extremes into existence–extremes of good, extremes of evil–and ordinary men after a time flinch from the ultimates and yearn for undemanding security. The Second World War was the climax of an epoch of living dangerously. It is no surprise that it precipitated a universal revulsion against greatness. “