It is a curious quirk of doublethink psychology, that might not be terribly healthy for everyone. But, we have bigger fish to fry, don't you think?
Oh, it's not something that I really bother with too much - you're right, there are far more important issues to consider (especially when this one is, for all means and purposes, bunk).
I voted "yes", although "support" is not necessarily the word I would use. I think Noma helps describe why there is no inherent conflict between science and religion.
Science cannot answer the question, "Is it wrong to steal?" It shouldn't even try to answer that question. You can scientifically study the effects on a society if there are no laws, strict laws, or less strict laws related to stealing, but that doesn't answer the question. Indeed, and question of "right and wrong" isn't really scientific.
Nevertheless, questions of morality are important to us. We care about what doing the "right" thing, and we often wonder what that right thing is. At that time, we turn to others for advice, and religion is one place where we turn.
Religion cannot prove the answers that it gives, but that doesn't make the answers less important.
Bingo. If someone were to ask, "Is it wrong to steal?" a scientist might be able to tell us what the effects of stealing are upon a society and use that as a reason; a philosopher might provide a reason based upon the social contract, or Kant's imperative...religion, however, cannot provide us with a reason. Religion can only tell us, "Do not steal," and then expect us to blindly follow.
To say that somehow religion can tell us anything about morality that science or philosophy cannot is nonsense. Religion merely tells us what we may and may not do, and asks us to accept these things on blind faith.
Good point. When religious people try to answer the question, "How old is the Earth," they are invading scientific turf.
I sometimes do, however, see a conflict the other way. I might ask the question, "Why are we here?" A scientist might mistakenly give an explanation of how we got here, but that misses the point. Worse yet, they might emphatically insist that there is no "reason", and that their claim is a scientific one. If they've done that, they've missed the point.
On the contrary,
they haven't missed the point,
you have.
Implicit in the question, "Why are we here?" is an assumption: That there is some inbuilt purpose behind our existence. If one simply wants the
reason we exist then an answer explaining our current knowledge of the big bang, star formation, planetary and solar system formation, and evolution would be a perfectly reasonable answer (one
might suggest that it is overkill, and that evolution is all that need be explained).
If you want to know what the
purpose of our existence is, you are making an unwarranted and unjustified assumption: That there
is an inbuilt purpose. That the universe somehow cares about us - an tiny intelligent species, on a single planet, orbiting a single sun on an outer spiral arm of the Milky Way...a speck of dust on a speck on a speck on a...you get my drift - when there is no evidence at all that would suggest the universe gives two quarks one way or another whether we exist or not.
There is no 'invasion' by science onto the turf of religion, because religion doesn't have exclusive rights to any part of human existence. It's still up in the air whether religion has a right to explain any aspect of human existence at all.
