> Corollary to this is that everybody is Religious and everybody is Scientific, and plays the card when its needed. Only if you define religious as 'spiritual'

> Corollary to this is that everybody is Religious and everybody is Scientific, and plays the card when its needed. Only if you define religious as 'spiritual'; as more than the physical atoms that make up a person. If you are claiming that being religious is an integral part of being human I guess we are going to need a new word to describe those who believe in a divine power guiding the events of the universe. I am certainly not religious. > What a Religious person derives from their beliefs has nothing -- zero, nothing -- to do with the measurable/observable particle interactions of the material world. Even if they say it does, self-reports are not to be trusted here. > What a Scientist derives from their observations has nothing -- zero, nothing -- to do with how they approach the world and others in the way of morality, pursuit of contented life, etc. Again self-reports are not to be trusted here. I do believe you are wrong in both counts here. If you don't think religious doctrines can shape how a person percieves and acts in the world I guess you have not meet many devout people. And if you think the observations of science have nothing to do with how people approach their interactions in the world, well, I don't know what to say. Science in human reproduction has made unthinkable positions just a couple of decades ago, morally acceptable today, and that is just one example of hundreds I could list of the top of my head.