Can you please amplify on this statement? What do you think the goals of science and religion are, and how have they failed to meet those goals? I’m honestly {grin} interested in what you hve to say …
JonF does raise an interesting question regarding failed goals…personally I do not think either religion or science have failed in their goals, but that depends on what you think their goals are.
If you believe that the goal of either science or religion is to give a definitive answer on what is “true” in the real world, then yes they have both failed. But if you believe the goal of religion is to bring us closer to an understanding of god as well as our own selves, and that the goal of science is to bring us closer to an understanding of how the real world works, I might suspect they have both succeeded admirably.
Is this where I should bring up Stephen J. Gould’s discussion of “nonoverlapping magisteria”?
Yes, please, Tracer. That sounds interesting.
Matt, here’s a link to an article Gould wrote for Natural History magazine in 1997. He has since expanded on this with a full book. It’s interesting, but to me it seems like he’s sitting on the fence a bit.
I’m glad you posted that link, Uncle, because I hadn’t the slightest idea where Goulds nonoverlapping magisteria stuff might be found online.
That, plus I think Gould was just showing off his big-word vocabulary when he came up with that title. 
Okay, back to the Lions analogy.
I accept that lions exist, but have never encountered one in my daily life. Thus, if someone tells me that he saw a lion walking down the street, I’m inclined to think he’s either a loonie or a joker.
Now then… if a perfectly rational, intelligent person tells me in great detail that he saw a lion walking down the street, I’m still skeptical, but want to hear more. Perhaps if I listen, he’ll give himself away as a joker, a madman or a scam artist. If, after I’ve heard him out, I’m convinced that he’s neither insane, nor kidding, nor trying to swindle me out of something… I may choose to believe something that strikes me as highly improbable.
Well, I happen to put the evangelists in the category of rational, intelligent and credible witnesses. Peter and Paul, for all their faults, were not psychotic (indeed, they understood as well as anyone how outrageous their story of a renaimated carpenter sounded), and they were not out to get rich (both were executed for their troubles).
So… whether the subject if lions or miracles, it all comes down to:
- Who’s the witness?
- Do you or don’t you find him credible?