Hi! I'm back.
I brought up this topic at a party I was at last night and got some interesting answers. One of my friends pointed out an intriguing distinction. He said that while the practice of science may have very little to do with religion, the way science is treated by the general masses bears some resemblence to religion. Your basic Average Joe or Jane out on the street doesn't understand the complexities of a hypothesis (not that I fully understand this either... But then again I'm still in school) or the tenuous standing of a theorem. So when a scientist comes out and says we have a theory and this is how it works John and Jane Doe say "Oh okay! Now I know something." And accept the theory as fact. In essence, they have faith in the theory. Similarly worshippers have faith in a God of some sort.
So... There are two major differences between science and religion. First off the people in the higher echelons of science (the scientists, obviously) shouldn't/don't have anymore faith in their theories than their last batch of experiments tells them they should. In religion the higher echelons should/must have faith in the God that they preach about. Secondly science is an exploration outward. Knowledge beyond the self. Religion is just the opposite.
I think the whole problem comes down to focus and definition. Where do we put the focus when we talk about science, the scientists or the science-ees? Then you have to ask, what definition of science and religion are you using? I say that from now on we should preface these big question discussions with a debate about semantics.
[img]tongue.gif[/img]
DeSoya