I recently decided to start studying again. At least I feel the need to improve my English skills. I was considering universities and now I think that online courses would be the best solution. I've already found materials such as [promova.com] on Promova to quickly get the information I need, clarify grammar rules, and so on.

I heard that it has something to do with the process of teaching and raising children, but to be honest I can't say that I'm well versed in this or in any way share these ideas. It's important for me that my child receives a really high-quality education that will be useful to him in the future. To improve his knowledge of maths, I found this online platform [brighterly.com]. In fact, I spent a lot of time looking for something that has experienced teachers, interesting programs, and an exciting learning process.

Religion to me sounds like helping widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

Theocracy is a type of government. Christianity is a type of theocracy. Christianity theocracy is about world domination of government with biblical dictates requiring laws that include government issued identification for capitalism slavery. ... bo one can BUY or SELL with out the mark [government required identification]. Revelations 13:17

Historically we can observe the catholic related attempts at world domination in things like the inquisition and other crusades that for that time didn't completely make it to total world domination.

Business sales tax identification, birth certificate, social security card, photo identification are examples of Mark's required to buy and sell in business or for having a bank account to use a debit or credit card.

Belief means hold information as true. The ethical foundational premise of science is to hold information they deam and certify as true in its truest possible form. Being as how science has many different branches like biology,physics and chemistry. These different branches or departments operate as a system where that the body of information from one branch can help support or be used in another branch. Therefore, science can be viewed as a belief system where the difference branches work together like a system that is inter functional or sharing their different "truths" with each branch.

Well if you like to be open minded, then there are other ways of looking at that too.

For example you can take the historical view. That once almost all of human culture was religious. Which is to say that, all culture was received wisdom or folly handed down traditionally and only justified by tradition. Indeed the original Roman word "religio" meant exactly the same thing as the term, "our culture" would today. But by about the sixth century BCE it was becoming clear to many people in different parts of the world, that merely accepting traditional untested handed down knowledge without question, was not working very well, especially as technology and politics advanced, and people started to have contact with many more cultures, whose religion often, openly, contradicted their own.

So at about that time, the idea that tradition alone was enough justification to be certain of the truth of an idea, began to be questioned. And in several parts of the world: India, China and especially Greece, people openly questioned it, and began to ask if improved methods of refining thought could not be found. They found that testing ideas against the filters of free debate, mathematics and the logical rules of epistemology which they invented based on maths, helped a lot, and philosophy was born, in an attempt to refine knowledge and grade out the rubbish.

It soon however became obvious that a lot of things in nature were so complex and often counter intuitive, that merely thinking and debating alone was not enough to justify, or even discover, a lot of things and ideas. And so several philosophers, ( In legend beginning with Aristotle. ) decided that observation was also a useful part of discovering which ideas were the best, and so the branch called natural philosophy was born.

As the world gradually came out of the MIddle Ages natural philosophy grew in power and importance, relative to the older type, and it was soon found that for many things undisciplined observation, could easily lead to errors, and was not in itself enough of a filter to keep them out. So that through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries further refinements were added, four especially: The experimental method; repeatablity; ( Everyone should be able to get the same results from an experiment.) the idea that nothing is ever totally proved, and that within natural philosophy everything can be reviewed in the light of new evidence; and following that, the value scale of hypothesis, experimental proof and theory. ( Which last does not mean hypothesis as in popular culture, but a whole body of evidence pointing to the same conclusion. ) And so the new even more improved version of natural philosophy eventually moved on so far, that it got a new name, "science". But at the same time it became obvious that some ideas could not be tested through all the new filters, things like moral and political ideas for example, so it becomes needful to accept, that there are still uses to be found for less refined methods of thinking and discovery, like philosophy, in some fields.

So that today I generally, ( and it is a personal method subjective to a high degree, ) try to use well supported science as my first go to, ideas supported by some science and some experiments as second, personal observation as third, philosophy as fourth and religion as last resort. But since a lot of what is found in many religions overlaps and agrees with with both science and philosophy, and can therefore be renamed either science and philosophy, I have never found that in practice I need to go back as far as that fifth level, and that at that point, "unknown" is the best answer anyway.

I do hope that this long answer is not too much for your very short question, it is not not glib or witty if that was what you were hoping for, sorry.

It depends on one's definition of science and scientism. I believe science to be open-minded as far as willing to entertain all propositionS with the understanding that the reception is proportional to the quantity and quality of evidence. With no evidence for wormholes, time travel or alternate universes, those propositions can't go anywhere except further, more arcane speculation.

Within the culture of scientists, some may become rigid and toss out propositions without a hearing. What scientist wants to hear another defender of Creationism? For sure, science is far from pure. The campaign by the Air Force et. al. to discredit any and all UFO reporting has had the chilling effect that sightings relevant to national security don't get reported, and the scientific community has been cowed into disparaging all UAP reports to show their loyalty to the orthodoxy. UFO debunking has become its own cult. These debunking cultists are intentionally ignorant and without understanding of the issues, and still refuse to address the evidence.

A good example of other dimensions may be interpreted from the way that quantum physics requires mathematical solutions that employ complex or imaginary number systems (link below). One other instance of this is network analysis of electrical circuits. Equations are formulated as defined by the circuit elements, and only by using complex numbers can a correct result be calculated.

[sciencenews.org]

One cannot become too doctrinaire given Schroedinger's Cat and the wave-particle duality, and good scientists take this to heart. Science has significant mystical or at least mysterious aspects to it. The beauty is that speculation leads to theories, theories to calculations, and calculations to findings; When the findings agree with reality, maybe we don't even have the right theory, but what we do have yields accurate predictions. (I saw today how this happens with Big Bang nucleosynthesis - - mind blowing!!!)

Tell me what you think might be disclosed that will rock the world?

Scientism is the use of too much science, enough to defeat my hypothesis.

Like alcoholism, the use of too much alcohol, enough to outshout me.

Barbarism - visiting more bars than I will survive.

Etc, etc.

the human is obviously desperate to believe something, as evidenced by some of the stuff that gets chosen. And agreement is no fun at all.

Sounds like you've been sucker punched into the feeble feckless pejoratives of religious ranters about those naughty New Atheists.

Scientism [en.wikipedia.org]

Okay... so... if we say that science does not hold all the answers... what are the alternatives? Religion? Metaphysics? Astrology? Voodoo? Homeopathy? The paranormal? Alchemy?

So Flat Earth nonsense should be given equal validity?

Bullshit

First of all, it's "scientism". But most of all, there is no evidence that contradicts what has been proven scientifically. One of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read here. Also, scientism bears no resemblance to a religion.