Where science and religion meet

Continuing the last post, another good article from the Evolution Institute. This one on where religion and science meet is relevant to the last post on presupposition. A few excerpts to whet the appetite. First, on

"the need to stay within the bounds of Methodological Naturalism. What is the meaning of this two-word phrase? Naturalism is defined as 'A viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes and supernatural explanations are excluded or discounted.' The word 'methodological' softens this claim by acknowledging that there is no definitive proof of naturalism."

"Science therefore qualifies as a religion according to Durkheim’s definition, or a meaning system according to my definition. What sets it apart from all other meaning systems, however, is that it worships factual realism as its God."

"The main problem with Jerry’s account is that he thinks that scientists can easily rise above the biases of their own non-scientific meaning systems. He doesn’t acknowledge the problems that exist when the entire community of scientists is embedded within a non-scientific meaning system and is incapable of seeing beyond it."

"What about the nature of faith? Faith is a requirement for all meaning systems because it is required to behave in uncertain situations. If we insisted on evidence for everything, we would be paralyzed."