"Given that the relevant kind of scientific enquiry corresponds in its goals with the religious, and that human inquiry and learning follows standard patterns, I for one am not very puzzled by the above. The difference between the two, I believe, is primarily one of ambition, encoding and transmission -- causing one (religion) to atrophy at times and the other to flourish."
Ravi &others,
As Dana Carvey's John McLaughlin would bellow, "WRONG!" (re: Your claim that "the relevant kind" of scientific inquiry "corresponds in its goals with the religious" and that science and religion's difference is one of "encoding" and "ambition.")
This is from U. Mass. physicist (and American Physical Society president) Robert Park's most recent column (http://www.bobpark.org/):
"It’s time we had a little talk. _The New York Times_ on Saturday published an op-ed by Paul Davies that addresses the question: 'Is embracing the laws of nature so different from religious belief?' Davies concludes that, 'until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.' Davies has confused two meanings of the word 'faith.' The Oxford Concise English Dictionary on my desk gives the two distinct meanings for faith as: '1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.' A scientist’s 'faith' is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word 'faith,' therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites. Davies, who won the 1995 Templeton Prize [formerly Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion] is not the only physicist to make that mistake. 'Many people don’t realize that science basically involves faith' Charles Townes said in his 2005 Templeton statement. On laser physics I would happily defer to Townes, but this is a matter of the English language. Here we defer to the dictionaries. The judges who awarded Townes’ the 2005 Templeton Prize cited a single line from his 1966 article 'The Convergence of Science and Religion': 'Understanding the order in the Universe and understanding the purpose of the universe are not identical, but they are also not very far apart.' They are a universe apart, http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn031105.html . In any case, the 'purpose' of the universe is not on the science agenda. Suicide bombers no doubt believe they are part of some divine 'purpose.'"
Also, I don't believe I've had an opportunity to express a Chuck0-ian "Fuck religion!" yet this week. Allow me to do so now: "Fuck religion!" (And Ron Paul, too.)
-B.