Today in class (4.23.07) we talked a bit about science being/becoming the only belief system (as found in some sci-fi stories). I wonder if science (as a sole belief system) would allow enough creativity? If something can answer (almost) everything (or, at least, can answer a whole lot about approachable, concrete things) does that mean science will always have a mass appeal? Doesn't uncertainty = excitement? Aren't questions that have no answers more exciting than questions that do? I'm not sure. My mind goes to art, and I think of how art can never be tied down. When art does become tied down and answerable (at least in my experience) it becomes lackluster. I'm not saying science is lackluster because it answers ("almost") everything. Hang with me for a bit. While science and art can (and do) overlap, and art has been around for a long time, I wonder if the faith belief "system" would have just as good of a chance at lasting through time as art would? I suppose, how I see it, if faith dies, art also dies. If art dies, faith dies. I'm not sure I'm explaining this right. I guess I just see faith and art as very similar in how neither really ever have concrete answers. So what I mean is, when society ceases to accept one "system" that cannot provide concrete answers (such as religion/faith), I see soceity also rejecting art, for it, too, is a "system" that cannot answer every question.