This message was self-deleted by its author

[Act_of_Reparation]

109. There is a major objection to the "Non-overlapping Magesteria" argument

1) Religion and science are not at odds because they do not argue two sides of the same question. They deal with different questions. I hope that is clear enough.

2) Religion has nothing to do with science. Your point attempts to frame religion as sui generis in opposition to science. Patently false.

With due respect, it is difficult to reconcile your earlier complaints of "broad brushing" religion with the above quotes, as you're essentially doing the same thing here (albeit in a way more flattering to religion). Religion is defined as a cultural construct comprised of shared beliefs, behaviors, symbols, stories, and ethics. As we've established elsewhere, even the Big Three religions vary so wildly from place-to-place and person-to-person that it is virtually impossible to define them in propositional terms. Religion isn't monolithic. It doesn't serve a singular purpose. Your religion might not have anything to do with science, or seek to answer naturalistic questions, but it's more than obvious that many other religions do.

Just a few years back, Ken Ham and Bill Nye argued for creationism and naturalism respectively. Ham isn't doing religion wrong because he's injecting himself into the realm of science. His religion is simply different from yours.