I can identify only one common attribute shared by both religion and science and that is human imagination.

I can’t see any reconciliation of the two since they are applied to uncommon goals. Science uses human imagination to interrogate possibilities to explain the observable, then develop a hypothesis, then test it and repeat it to produce a single applicable formula for each problem.

Religion on the other hand is man made, by our imagination. Since religion has no “observable” components, our imagination creates them, miracles, divine interventions and “holy texts”.

Instead of a single formula for each religious problem, we end up with today’s 34,000 formulae or religions.

There can be no reconciliation of two mutually exclusive constructs. Every time we try we simply create another religion (formula).

I am "forcing" my beliefs on you as you put it Greg because my beliefs are better than yours. :P My beliefs give you and all others the freedom to believe what they want while not infringing on others. In contrast to the godbotherers beliefs which want to force us all to conform to their twisted morality and rules and take away our free will.

This reference gives a unique Understanding of the role of science as a method of free enquiry, and scientific materialism as a limited power seeking ideology or dogma.

1. http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science.aspx

Plus a unique Understanding of religion, God and Truth.

1. http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

Mikk, the one thing which seriously bothers me about people who hold your view is that they rarely recognise the fact that EVERYONE forces their beliefs on others.

Everyone knows this, or they must if they've given it a moments thought, but it is swept out of the way in order to create this false dichotomy whereby one group is trying to force beliefs on others, and the other group (your view) is not. This is simply untrue.

For example, I will make the assumption that you think child gambling is wrong. Now you may or may not share this view, but the content is not the issue as we could use numerous different examples here. So lets say an 11 year old considers himself mature enough to be able to gamble on the pokies. Now, is it not "infringing" on him to not allow him the privelege? Of course it is infringing on him.

So the point is, everyone infringes on someone. We personally do it, and governments do it. So the question is NOT the false question which you imply- should we able to infringe our beliefs on others?, the question is actually What should we infringe on others and what shouldn't we infringe on others?

This is an important distinction, which is so often lost. Losing the distinction allows your view to become slyly misleading.

Wing Ah Ling,

Exactly, for many,even educated people, "God" is the god of the gaps in human understanding.
I've no objection to religious belief as long as it's not compulsory and believers follow the laws of the liberal democratic state. An evolutionary explanation for religious belief is examined in this article at-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

Evolution has been correctly described as a fairy tale for adults. Despite numerous changes in the theory it still is not backed by science or has any plausible answers in regards to origins. It is faith based just the same way as the gw alarmist are faith based. The stinking humanistic worldview which secularist draw from the evolution theory leads to degradation, death and suicide and immorality. Man in his arrogance thinks if he can sell a silly little theory excluding God he may then be the master of his own destiny. He thinks he can have sex with who he wants, mock his Creator as he pleases, murder the unborn and play god himself. Thank fully God is not mocked and each will be judged by His Creator. Hopefully many will find forgiveness in Christ and stop denying the obvious corruption of their nature. God must laugh at such a pathetic attempt to explain the universe (as evolution). I really think a two year old has more of an idea.