collapse

* Recent Posts

NCSTATE is evil by wisblue
[Today at 08:50:52 AM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Jay Bee
[Today at 08:27:25 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Spotcheck Billy
[Today at 07:22:54 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 07:02:21 AM]


Dallas bars tonite by Marquette Gyros
[Today at 06:59:41 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Jay Bee
[Today at 06:42:08 AM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Uncle Rico
[Today at 06:32:48 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: A Pope for our time?  (Read 23704 times)

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #75 on: October 21, 2014, 08:22:28 AM »
Very well put

To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer.  I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country. 

What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics?  It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.

Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #76 on: October 21, 2014, 08:42:32 AM »
To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer.  I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country. 

What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics?  It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.

Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.


I agree with you to a point.  Religions like societies, humans, planets, and all things, evolve.  My favorite prof at MU was John Zemler and I had him for a couple of theology classes.  One of the things I remember vividly that we discussed was how the bible was a roadmap for evolution of a species and a society.  In the early days, if you killed someone their family could wipe out your whole family so "eye for an eye" was born because it was an improvement.  Later came the golden rule because now society had been conditioned to only take an eye for an eye, we were ready to "turn the other cheek".  There are a lot of other examples of this.

Society evolves and religion should be helping guide that evolution, keep it on the rails so to speak.  Some times religion needs to shape society and some time religion needs to catch up to society. 

In this case, I think religion needs to catch up.  Correct, a religion doesn't need to perform, support, or recognize a gay marriage in a religious context....but they should recognize it as a civil right and they should recognize gay individuals as no different than any other human being of any type.  I'm not saying the catholic church doesn't, but they could certainly use some clarification if nothing else.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #77 on: October 21, 2014, 08:55:11 AM »
To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer.  I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country.  

What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics?  It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.

Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.


Because there are two different ways of looking at "religion."  The Catholic Church is top-down and dogma based.  That there is "truth" out there and such truth is discerned by those at the top and filtered down from there.

Some of the churches that are approving gay marriage, such as the UCC and ELCA, are bottom-up, grassroots organization while being guided by leadership, the truth can be discerned by anyone through prayerful consideration.  So policies tend to develop from the bottom up.

So there are two ways of looking at these issues.  Has God declared that <insert issue here> is "wrong" for time eternal, but the flock has strayed away from that message due to immorality.  Or can the flock determine what God has in mind and act accordingly.

As someone who grew up in the latter tradition, I never really had a list of rights and wrongs.  Simply guided by faith and love to love God and love our neighbor.  That is open to a great deal of interpretation I know.  But I don't find it "squishy" in that sense.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:57:36 AM by The Sultan of Sunshine »

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12221
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #78 on: October 21, 2014, 09:04:05 AM »


Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.


The reason that "consumers" want the church to change their views on homosexuality is that the church's views are based on a bunch of fictions from a bygone day. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that homosexuality isn't a "choice" or a disease from which one can be cured. The nonsense that underpins the church's position on homosexuality defies science and is an affront to common sense and common decency. But glad to know that they're "leading the flock" and basing their decisions on "what is right and wrong". LOL. They are decades behind the curve - thank God that some of their "consumers" are helping to drag them out of the ignorance, intolerance and bigotry that you don't think they should question.

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #79 on: October 21, 2014, 09:58:40 AM »
To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer.  I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country.  

What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics?  It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.

Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.


One of the Church's primary missions is to seek truth.

When facts change, when science changes perception of reality, it is the Church's obligation, in seeking the truth, to adjust Her teachings to account for these realities, these facts.

For centuries the Church taught the earth was the center of the universe, but when science disproved this notion, the Church had to adjust (although it took way too long).

The Church's current teachings on homosexuality are rooted in misconceptions that science has disproved (homosexuality is a choice, a disease, is unnatural, even though it is not a choice, not a disease, and happens in nature). Thus, they need to adjust. Your abortion analogy holds absolutely no water. Science has not come through with some development that now allows for a justification of abortion.

Religion should not conflict with science. They should compliment one another. Science answers how and religion answers why. They must be in concert. Religion must be grounded in reason and rational thought. This is central to Catholic teaching and Catholic philosophy.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 10:02:40 AM by Bleutellenson »

Silkk the Shaka

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5376
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #80 on: October 21, 2014, 12:31:17 PM »
One of the Church's primary missions is to seek truth.

When facts change, when science changes perception of reality, it is the Church's obligation, in seeking the truth, to adjust Her teachings to account for these realities, these facts.

For centuries the Church taught the earth was the center of the universe, but when science disproved this notion, the Church had to adjust (although it took way too long).

The Church's current teachings on homosexuality are rooted in misconceptions that science has disproved (homosexuality is a choice, a disease, is unnatural, even though it is not a choice, not a disease, and happens in nature). Thus, they need to adjust. Your abortion analogy holds absolutely no water. Science has not come through with some development that now allows for a justification of abortion.

Religion should not conflict with science. They should compliment one another. Science answers how and religion answers why. They must be in concert. Religion must be grounded in reason and rational thought. This is central to Catholic teaching and Catholic philosophy.

Precisely why it's all bogus to begin with.

Skatastrophy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5517
  • ✅ Verified Member
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #81 on: October 21, 2014, 12:35:09 PM »
My Sky Wizard could beat up your Sky Wizard.

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #82 on: October 21, 2014, 02:40:59 PM »
Precisely why it's all bogus to begin with.

That's an entirely different discussion, but not really. Religion and science answer different questions.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #83 on: October 21, 2014, 03:45:15 PM »
One of the Church's primary missions is to seek truth.

When facts change, when science changes perception of reality, it is the Church's obligation, in seeking the truth, to adjust Her teachings to account for these realities, these facts.

For centuries the Church taught the earth was the center of the universe, but when science disproved this notion, the Church had to adjust (although it took way too long).

The Church's current teachings on homosexuality are rooted in misconceptions that science has disproved (homosexuality is a choice, a disease, is unnatural, even though it is not a choice, not a disease, and happens in nature). Thus, they need to adjust. Your abortion analogy holds absolutely no water. Science has not come through with some development that now allows for a justification of abortion.

Religion should not conflict with science. They should compliment one another. Science answers how and religion answers why. They must be in concert. Religion must be grounded in reason and rational thought. This is central to Catholic teaching and Catholic philosophy.

Perhaps, though science has also "proven" things that turned out to be disproven....you gave examples here in your own paragraph.  Just as science has said things are "settled" and predicted we would be standing in several feet of water here on the west coast by now (I can cite you a number of scientists that said this), but it hasn't happened. 

My dad was a scientist and didn't believe in God until late in life.  It was then that he got baptized Catholic.  If we're truly going to go on religion and science, you might want to obliterate religion altogether, which I have no doubt many people would applaud.  There are things within religion that cannot be explained, where no scientific consensus can support the outcome or belief.  That's why it is called faith.  I don't disagree with some of your examples, but my overall point is science and religion don't always mesh and that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.  Certainly some people wield it as a political tool to say believers are stupid or don't believe in science.  In reality, there are plenty of people that have faith and believe in science, they do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Silkk the Shaka

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5376
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #84 on: October 22, 2014, 12:21:18 PM »
That's an entirely different discussion, but not really. Religion and science answer different questions.

Okay I'll bite.

1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?

2.) If they're supposed to answer different questions, why does religion constantly attempt to answer a question it's unqualified to answer, then force-feed it as dogma?

🏀

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8467
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #85 on: October 22, 2014, 12:31:32 PM »

1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?



It 'answers' questions that science can't quite fully explain and gives those needing assurance an avenue to direct their lives.

Does that make it correct? No. Does it make it necessary? For some, yes.

The issues are when science can fully answer a question, religion offers too much resistance instead of accepting the truth and incorporating that.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #86 on: October 22, 2014, 01:35:44 PM »
The reason that "consumers" want the church to change their views on homosexuality is that the church's views are based on a bunch of fictions from a bygone day. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that homosexuality isn't a "choice" or a disease from which one can be cured. The nonsense that underpins the church's position on homosexuality defies science and is an affront to common sense and common decency. But glad to know that they're "leading the flock" and basing their decisions on "what is right and wrong". LOL. They are decades behind the curve - thank God that some of their "consumers" are helping to drag them out of the ignorance, intolerance and bigotry that you don't think they should question.


You're arguing a totally different point.  The church sees the sacrament of marriage more than just the act of marrying, but the fruits of that commitment, including children.  So does the Islamic Faith, and the Jewish Faith, and so on and so forth. 

Look, I don't particularly give a rip what people do, I have gay friends, gay employees, gay relatives.  Some have married (and divorced), some are about to be married.  The church has a different stance, and I'm fine with that as well.

At the end of the day, the church is supposed to be about what they feel is right, wrong, etc.....this isn't a consumer gets to decide.  Cafeteria Catholics have done that forever as it is, so none of that is going to change.

When it all ends, it could be for not.  We die, it goes black, we take a dirt nap and nothing ever happens.  Or, there is something beyond, and maybe the church is right, or maybe it isn't.  We'll all find out someday.  If one believes in the latter, does that mean people that followed the church teachings that you don't agree with are damned forever?  Or vice versa?  Or neither?  I have no idea, I'm just curious your point of view.  As far as intolerance and ignorance, I don't see it in this case.  The Church is saying they won't perform gay marriages, but they have supported gays in many other ways.

Are you hopping mad about this, or is this just what consumers want as well?  http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #87 on: October 22, 2014, 02:56:51 PM »
It 'answers' questions that science can't quite fully explain and gives those needing assurance an avenue to direct their lives.

Does that make it correct? No. Does it make it necessary? For some, yes.

The issues are when science can fully answer a question, religion offers too much resistance instead of accepting the truth and incorporating that.

That's pretty fair statement in my opinion.  I would only add that "when science can fully answer" is subjective, but often portrayed as settled.  Quite frankly, science should never be "settled" is what my dad brilliantly told me.  Science is about the pursuit of truth and one may think what is known today in science is the truth, but it may not be 10 years later of 500 years later.  The problem is when people say it is settled for reasons that have NOTHING to do with science, but solely on policy or politics or what have you.   Even Einstein's work came out to have some issues in the last 2 years that was considered settled, but now proven not to be entirely accurate.  As long as people understand this, all is good.  When they say it's settled, they usually want to stop discussion and lock in on a result, not the continued pursuit of truth and knowledge.

brandx

  • Guest
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #88 on: October 22, 2014, 03:00:02 PM »
Okay I'll bite.

1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?

2.) If they're supposed to answer different questions, why does religion constantly attempt to answer a question it's unqualified to answer, then force-feed it as dogma?

Good points. If they are supposed to answer different questions, why are (religious) politicians constantly trying to add religious elements into scientific studies in our schools. Why do they want Creationism taught in science class if they are "supposed" to answer different questions.


Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12221
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #89 on: October 22, 2014, 03:06:35 PM »
That's pretty fair statement in my opinion.  I would only add that "when science can fully answer" is subjective, but often portrayed as settled.  Quite frankly, science should never be "settled" is what my dad brilliantly told me.  Science is about the pursuit of truth and one may think what is known today in science is the truth, but it may not be 10 years later of 500 years later.  The problem is when people say it is settled for reasons that have NOTHING to do with science, but solely on policy or politics or what have you.   Even Einstein's work came out to have some issues in the last 2 years that was considered settled, but now proven not to be entirely accurate.  As long as people understand this, all is good.  When they say it's settled, they usually want to stop discussion and lock in on a result, not the continued pursuit of truth and knowledge.

So it's not "settled" that the earth revolves around the sun but a "good Catholic" should consider all homosexual sex an abomination until further notice. Right.

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6031
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #90 on: October 22, 2014, 03:18:16 PM »
Good points. If they are supposed to answer different questions, why are (religious) politicians constantly trying to add religious elements into scientific studies in our schools. Why do they want Creationism taught in science class if they are "supposed" to answer different questions.



This makes me so mad I can hardly believe it's a real thing sometimes. Among thousands of other reasons, this is just one more that leads our education system to be severely hampered.

brandx

  • Guest
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #91 on: October 22, 2014, 04:05:45 PM »
So it's not "settled" that the earth revolves around the sun but a "good Catholic" should consider all homosexual sex an abomination until further notice. Right.

Gravity is just a theory as well. If we could actually see the trillions of invisible little creatures holding everything down, we could know the truth.

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #92 on: October 22, 2014, 04:23:34 PM »
Okay I'll bite.

1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?

2.) If they're supposed to answer different questions, why does religion constantly attempt to answer a question it's unqualified to answer, then force-feed it as dogma?

Religion that attempts to answer scientific questions, such as Christian Creationism, isn't only bad science, it is bad religion. I abhor and detest such "religion."

Religion should not try to trump science. A rational religious person, hopefully such as those who attended a Jesuit university, does not deny scientific evidence. I love science. I embrace scientific theory, including scientific descriptions for the creation of the universe and everything else. The Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. It conveys Truth, but through myth and metaphor. This is the thing biblical literalists do not understand.

But even if the Big Bang theory can explain "how" we are here, it cannot answer "why." It cannot answer the questions regarding the purpose of our lives, the meaning of existence, and other deep philosophical questions humanity has pondered for millenia. It will never be able to answer these questions. Will religion ever be able to fully answer these questions either? No. But it is one of the avenues (along with philosophical inquiry) that allows humans to pursue this Truth.

One of my favorite Jesuits (other than Bob Wild), is Guy Consolmagno, who is a head of the Vatican observatory. He better than anyone knows how science and religion are mutually compatible. I encourage you to watch his TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmU2gDbP_Tk


GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #93 on: October 22, 2014, 04:27:45 PM »
Religion that attempts to answer scientific questions, such as Christian Creationism, isn't only bad science, it is bad religion. I abhor and detest such "religion."

Religion should not try to trump science. A rational religious person, hopefully such as those who attended a Jesuit university, does not deny scientific evidence. I love science. I embrace scientific theory, including scientific descriptions for the creation of the universe and everything else. The Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. It conveys Truth, but through myth and metaphor. This is the thing biblical literalists do not understand.

But even if the Big Bang theory can explain "how" we are here, it cannot answer "why." It cannot answer the questions regarding the purpose of our lives, the meaning of existence, and other deep philosophical questions humanity has pondered for millenia. It will never be able to answer these questions. Will religion ever be able to fully answer these questions either? No. But it is one of the avenues (along with philosophical inquiry) that allows humans to pursue this Truth.

One of my favorite Jesuits (other than Bob Wild), is Guy Consolmagno, who is a head of the Vatican observatory. He better than anyone knows how science and religion are mutually compatible. I encourage you to watch his TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmU2gDbP_Tk


This is very well put.  I will have to check out the Ted talk too.

The way I have always viewed it is that God gave us minds for a reason.

Spotcheck Billy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2230
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #94 on: October 22, 2014, 04:35:46 PM »

The way I have always viewed it is that God gave us minds for a reason.

Wait, are you including all scoopers in "us"?

Eldon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2945
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #95 on: October 23, 2014, 01:05:57 AM »
In my experiences, I have noticed that many of those who cling so tightly to science have but a superficial understanding of it.  They suffer from a strand of the Dunning-Kruger effect--they aren't aware of what they don't know.  At the risk of 'appealing to authority', I would recommend those who take modern science as gospel to take a look at the religious/philosophical beliefs of the academics in the natural sciences.  The number of theists (including deists) may surprise you. 

One other point to keep in mind is that there are some very outspoken scientists who are incredibly great at what they do.  They are experts in their respective fields.  However, they often go on talk shows, write books, etc., and they voice their personal, philosophical opinions on God, religion, the afterlife, etc.  When many of these scientists speak about such matters, they have tacitly removed their scientist hat and replaced it with their I-have-an-opinion hat.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who do not see the switch. 

Okay, one other point.  The Bible contains both real historical events and allegory.  Some passages in the Bible could be interpreted literally or figuratively; science can reveal how to interpret ambiguous scriptures.  This is one of the important roles of science, according to modern-day Roman Catholic doctrine (and historically, St. Augustine of Hippo). 

For example, after the destruction of the Tower of Babel, the Bible says (paraphrasing) that 'God dispersed the people among the four corners of the earth'.  Of course, some could interpret this to mean that the earth has four literal corners.  However, science reveals to us that we should interpret this passage figuratively.  Yet another example is the earth being created in six literal days.  For those painting religion with a broad brush, I would ask that you keep in mind that the majority of the people who believe in a 6,000 year old earth that was created in six 24 hour days are Protestants and Evangelicals.

Anyway, I could go on for hours.  For those who are truly curious about the interaction between science and religion, I would highly recommend visiting the Magis Center's website.  They have some good resources.

http://www.magiscenter.com/science-reason-faith/

It is run by Father Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit priest who is a physicist (cosmologist specifically, I believe) by trade and the former president of Gonzaga University.

MU Fan in Connecticut

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3438
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #96 on: October 23, 2014, 07:18:50 AM »
You forget to mention that most of the Old Testament was oral stories passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years before anyone even wrote it down, so what you read in the OT should not be taken literally.  You're just seeing the point where the story evolved to when it was finally written.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #97 on: October 23, 2014, 09:29:28 AM »
This makes me so mad I can hardly believe it's a real thing sometimes. Among thousands of other reasons, this is just one more that leads our education system to be severely hampered.

Yeah, certainly something like Common Core or teachers that are unqualified but protected by Unions don't hamper it.  LOL

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #98 on: October 23, 2014, 09:38:40 AM »
So it's not "settled" that the earth revolves around the sun but a "good Catholic" should consider all homosexual sex an abomination until further notice. Right.


You are missing his overall point as a scientist.  Science is about the pursuit of truth.  What is known today, may be different as additional knowns become known in the future.  Or a better way to put it, you don't stop the science.  You don't just put things in a case and close the book.  Now, he was speaking figuratively, of course, but the premise is absolutely correct.   Today, if I drop a ball, it will hit the ground due to gravity.  In 1000 years, that may not be the case because of influences we cannot predict.  

A quote that he would share.  

"Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?"
- Galileo


Stephen Hawking has talked about this many times.   “No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.  On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”


We can go through 1000's of examples where science of the day said one thing, but ultimately turned out wrong.  Whether it is the mundane like margarine is better for you than butter, or using leaches to bleed you out, of people in a car going over 50mph would not be able to breathe due to a lack of oxygen, the earth being flat, so on and so forth.  And those conclusions may be wrong again, at some future time.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 01:19:55 AM by ChicosBailBonds »

reinko

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
Re: A Pope for our time?
« Reply #99 on: October 23, 2014, 09:56:31 AM »
When a significant % of people in our country believes this:



Is it really worth arguing between science and religion?