Honest Doubt Part 16 - On the Edge

This had a poem by Emily Dickinson talking about life after death as a riddle, there was also Ludwig Wittgenstein saying that 'even when all possible scientific questions are answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all' and similar thoughts from Einstein and Roger Scruton.

But is there really such a huge gap between science and religion? I can think of the following overlaps between the two:

1. Science has to operate in an open, enquiring manner taking note of evidence, using collaboration - there seems to be some moral underpinning of how science has to work effectively that must relate to morality generally and therefore to religion.

2. The facts of the universe have to be taken into account by religion. It is not irrelevant that many religions have creation stories, and generally they don't include the actual creation story of vast lengths of time, the huge distances of space - if you are thinking of a traditional creator "God" such a being has to be understood as someone who makes these vast times and distances and that cannot but help make him strange and alien in some way.

3. The facts of religions - that there are many religions, they vary in different ways, they a generally geographically located, this has to be taken into account by a religion.

4. Generally the facts as we know them about humanity. Religion claims to tell us about ourselves, to have a "wisdom" on how to live a right life, to reveal the truth about ourselves. In so far as science also tells us about ourselves - what makes us who we are, what helps us grow, what distorts us - then there is also a connection with religion.

Basically in so far as science deals with evidence and reason, and religion claims to deal at least in part with evidence and reason, the two must have an overlap and be able to inform and speak to each other. That isn't to say that either can have the last word on the other, but it seems disingenuous to say there is no overlap at all.