In Age of Science, Is Religion 'Harmful Superstition'?

[silverweb]

16. It depends.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I've never considered the two to be incompatible. Both seek truth (although religions that claim to already possess "the only truth" are ridiculously arrogant).

Let's go by the five most important answers a good journalist goes after: Who, what, where, how, why, and when. Science seeks the what, where, how, and when, based on evidence. Religions seek the who and why, for which evidence is lacking, and so are "faith based," usually depending on a mythology developed over time by many people.

Religious people can believe their versions of who and why as much as they like, as far as I'm concerned. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (Notes on Virginia, 1782).

When religionists start denying scientific evidence for what, where, how, and when - and especially when they try to impose those beliefs on others (I'm looking at you, fundies of all stripes) - then we have problems.

At least, that's the way I've always viewed the matter.

On edit: I highly recommend the novel, Blasphemy, by Douglas Preston. It deals fascinatingly with just this issue.