However, if we were mature about it we'd see that neither science or religion is a source of truth, not of absolute truth anyway. The important part of science is the method of inquiry, the important part of religion is the method of building character.
If both scientists and religious leaders could accept the 'all I know is that I know nothing' idea, I suspect there'd be much fewer issues between them.
Religion claims to be the source of [absolute] truth.
Science seems to be most humble about it, always self-doubting, always open to better explanations.
If both scientists and religious leaders could accept the 'all I know is that I know nothing' idea, I suspect there'd be much fewer issues between them.
Religion is much more than [absolute] truth.
It also claims [absolute] morality.
Absolute rules.
And that means their leaders, their belief and their rules are untouchable and will always be.
Science admits there is a lot of things we don't understand, yet religion asserts a universal explanation of everything, God.
I suppose between the times of Newton and Einstein you could say that science did purport to be able to provide all the answers, but I'm not sure that can still be claimed after Heisenberg.